Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 119 136 CS 002 443
AUTHOR Elliott, Robert C.TITLE Comparative Value of a Systematic Diagnostic and
Prescriptive Approach to the Teaching of Reading(Instructional Management System).
PUB DATE Dec 75NOTE 127p.; Ph.D. Dissertation, Walden University
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$7.35 Plus PostageDESCRIPTORS *Diagnostic Teaching; Doctoral Theses; *Program
Evaluation; Reading Achievement; ReadingComprehension; Reading Diagnosis; *Reading Research;*Reading Skills; Sex Differences; Teacher Education;*Teaching Methods; Vocabulary Development
IDENTIFIERS WDRSD; *Wisconsin Design for Reading SkillsDevelopment
ABSTRACTThe primary purpose of this study was to determine
the value of familiarizing third grade teachers with specific readingskills and to describe the effects of their using the word-attackelement of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills Development(WDRSD) as an instructional management system for improving theachievements in reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and totalreading. Secondary purposes were to determine the differences betweenhigh, middle, and low aptitude subgroups and between male and femalesubgroups. During 1973-74, the experimental group of 285 studentsreceived WDRSD treatment, and the control group of 220 students didnot. During May 1974, all students were given the Short Form Test ofAcademic Aptitude and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills todetermine aptitude and achievement. The tests of hypotheses showed nosignificant difference in reading comprehension, reading vocabulary,and total reading achievement between treatment and control group;and no difference in reading between high, middle, and low aptitudepupils of the two groups. However, in both experimental and controlgroups, female subgroups surpassed their male counterparts.(A uthor/TS)
***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished
* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *
* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *
* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *
* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. *
***********************************************************************
U I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATIONS WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO.DUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
COMPARATIVE VALUE OF A SYSTEMATIC DIAGNOSTIC
AND PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO THE
TEACHING OF READING
(INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)
By
Robert C. Elliott
B. A. University of South Dakota at Vermillion, 1955
M. A. Michigan State University at East Lansing, 1968
Ed. S. Michigan State University at East Lansing, 1970
z, 1
/1/(:41,/ XZe4,6ihn R. Heckerl, Ph. D., Advisor
Oakland UniversityRochester, Michigan
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ofThe Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
WALDEN UNIVERSITY
December, 1975
2
CDRobert Curtis Elliott 1976All Rights Reserved
3
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
Statement of purposeHypothesesMethodologyDefinition of TermsBasic Assumptions
vi
viii
1
4
4
5
7
8
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9
Historical Overview 9
Individualizing Instruction 12The Diagnostic and Prescriptive Role 17The Era of Instructional Management Systems
. 20Summary 28
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 30
The Educational Setting and Population 30The Subjects 34The Operation of the Program 37Instrumentation 39Instruments Used 41Statement of Hypotheses in Null Form 45
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 53
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 67
Summary 67A Report of the Findings 70Discussion and Conclusions 74Recommendations 76
iii
4
APPENDICES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
iv
Page
79
112
ABSTRACT
COMPARATIVE VALUE OF A SYSTEMATIC DIAGNOSTIC
AND PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO THE
TEACHING OF READING
(INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)
By
Robert C. Elliott
B. A. University of South Dakota at Vermillion, 1955
M. A. Michigan State University at East Lansing, 1968
Ed. S. Michigan State University at East Lansing, 1970
R. Heckerl, Ph. D., AdvisorOakland UniversityRochester, Michigan
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ofThe Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
WALDEN UNIVERSITY
December, 1975
6
COMPARATIVE VALUE OF A SYSTEMATIC DIAGNOSTIC AND PRESCRIPTIVE
APPROACH TO THE TEACHING OF READING
(INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)
IN THIRD GRADE, WATERFORD, MICHIGAN
1973-1974
Elliott, Robert Curtis
Walden University
Advisor: Dr. John R. Heckerl
The Problem: The problems related to teaching reading have often been
provided contradictory solutions, recent ones entailing Instructional
Management Systems.
Purpose of the Study: The primary purpose of this study was to deter-
mine the value of familiarizing third grade teachers with specific read-
ing skills and to describe the effects of their using the word-attack
element of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development ( WDRSD)
as an Instructional Management System for improving the achievements in
reading comprehension, reading vocabulary and total reading. Secondary
purposes were to determine the differences between high, middle and low
aptitude subgroups and between male and female subgroups.
Methodology: During 1973-74, the experimental group, 285 students,
received WDRSD treatment; the control group, 220 students, did not.
During May 1974, all students were given the Short Form Test of Academic
7)
Aptitude and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills to determine apti-
tude and achievement.
Conclusions: The tests of hypotheses showed no significant difference
in reading comprehension, reading vocabulary and total reading achieve-
ment between the treatment group and the control group after one year.
Similarly, the tests indicated no significant difference in reading
comprehension, reading vocabulary and total reading achievement between
high, middle and low aptitude pupils of the two groups. In both the
experimental and the control groups, female subgroups surpassed their
male counterparts.
Recommendations: A school district that decides to adopt the Wisconsin
Design for Reading Skill Development should prepare for considerable
staff planning, in-service education and commitment to the development
of an Instructional Management System.
A longitudinal study should be made to determine if reading
vocabulary, reading comprehension and total reading achievement are
significantly affected by use of the six elements of the Wisconsin
Design.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Waterford Fourth Grade Word Relationship ScoreProfile 33
2. Chronology of Major Program Events 40
3. Means and Standard Deviations of WDRSD Group and ControlGroup by Aptitude Subgroups on Comprehension Sub-test, CTBS
4. Means and Standard Deviations of WDRSD Group and ControlGroup Scores by Aptitude Subgroups on Vocabulary Sub-test, CTBS
5. Means and Standard Deviations of WDRSD Group and ControlGroup Scores by Aptitude Subgroups on Total ReadingSub-test, CTBS
6. Means and Standard Deviations of WDRSD Group and ControlGroup Scores by Sex Grouping on Comprehension Sub-test, CTBS
7. 1.,:ans and Standard Deviations of WDRSD Group and ControlGroup Scores by Sex Grouping on Vocabulary Sub-test,CTBS
8. Means and Standard Deviations of WDRSD Group and ControlGroup Scores by Sex Grouping on Total Reading Sub-test, CTBS
9. Mean Pre-Test and Post-Test Reading Vocabulary and Com-prehension Scores (G.E.U.) for Third Grade Treatment( WDRSD) and Control Groups 1973-74
56
58
60
62
64
66
72
10. Average Number of Word Attack Skills Acquired by ThirdGrade Students During 1973-74 73
9
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
A. Test Instruments 80
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) . . . . 81Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) . . 83Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests (GATES) 85
B. Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development State-ment of Skills and Objectives for Word Attack
. . . 86
C. Breakdown of the Adapted Dolch Basic Word List byLevels 97
D. Instructional Management Model for the Improvement ofReading 100
An Instructional Management Model for the Improve-ment of Reading In-Service Assessment 101
Agenda--Reading Instruction Management Model Work-shop 106
Waterford School District Reading InstructionManagement Model--Staff Questionnaire 108
to
My Wife Donrtette
and Children
ToddStaciSherriBeth
1.1vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This writer wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. John Pagen,
Superintendent of the Waterford School District and Dr. Maurice Pelton,
Director of Elementary Education for encouraging him to attend Walden
University and become a doctoral candidate.
It must also be stated that this study could not have been done
without the cooperation of the teachers, the project coordinators and
the administrators of the Waterford School District.
Special thanks are due to my local advisor, Dr. John R. Heckerl
aru many members of the Walden University Faculty for their advice,
counsel and patience.
Special thanks and appreciation are due Dr. Robert S. Kramp,
DireciJr of Library Services, Oakland Schools, for his valuable assis-
tance in obtaining needed research materials.
Special thanks are also due Dr. William R. Veitch, Assistant
Director, Systematic Studies, Oakland Schools, who supervised the com-
puter analysis of data at the Oakland Schools facility.
I would like to express special appreciation to Dr. Terrence
Coburn, Assistant Director of Mathematics, Oakland Schools, for his
valuable assistance relating to research design refinement and data
interpretation.
Very special thanks and appreciation must be given to my wife,
Donnette and children for their continuous support, encouragement and
understanding during the years of my graduate work.
viii
12
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study is designed to evaluate an instructional management
model for the improvement of reading in the Waterford School District,
Waterford, Michigan. The development of this model is funded by Ele-
mentary Secondary Educational Act (ESEA) Title III through the Michigan
Department of Education's Experimental and Demonstration Centers Program.
The Waterford School District program was designed to improve
reading achievement progress rates through the development and imple-
mentation of a Reading Instruction Model. The Model incorporated the
means of assisting teachers in diagnosing strengths and deficiencies in
students' skill development, in prescribing appropriate instruction, and
in using assessment data to improve program offerings. It was proposed
that the improvement in students' reading progress rates would be depen-
dent upon the ability of the teacher to identify and diagnose specific
difficulties as well as to prescribe appropriate corrective or develop-
mental instruction.
Program activities during the second year of implementation
focused on six elementary schools that are characterized by relatively
high concentrations of students who qualify for E.S.E.A. Title I assis-
tance. The major objective of the program was to increase reading pro-
gress rates of elementary students by improving teacher performance in
131
2
the areas of diagnosis, prescription and evaluation.) The vehicle used
to aid teachers in improving their performance in these areas was the
Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development.
The Wisconsin Design was selected for this project for several
reasons. First, it met the requirements that teachers expressed in a
district-wide survey for a structured organization for teaching reading
skills. Second, the Design was flexible enough to allow adaptation to
local needs. On a broader scale, the Design was considered as a vehicle
to launch the district into objective-based reading instruction while
local development of this concept was continuing. Third, the Design
was, in itself, an accountability model.
The Wisconsin Design is primarily an instructional management
model in reading. It provides for an assessment of an individual stu-
dent's reading skills, the means for teachers to constantly monitor the
progress of their students, and a profile of skill attainment for each
student.
Instructionally, the Design provides the teacher with an exten-
sive reading skills sequence, an index of materials to teach these
skills, and criterion-referPnced tests to evaluate skill attainment.
The Wisconsin Design is an adaptation of educational concepts
advanced by developers of a system of Individually Guided Education
(IGE) at the elementary school level. As explained by Otto and Askov,
)John R. Heckerl, "Waterford School District--Evaluation Reportof an Instructional Management Model for the Improvement of Reading,"First report submitted to the Michigan Department of Education- -
Experimental and Demonstration, Centers Program, July, 1973, p. 7.
1 4
3
The Design conforms to the concept of IndividuallyGuided Education (IGE) described by Klausmeier and others( Klausmeier, Quilling',''Sorenson, Way, and Glasrud, 1971).Briefly, IGE is a system of elementary education that in-cludes: a statement of behavioral objectives; an instruc-tional program of materials, equipment, and student andteacher activities designed to achieve the objectives;procedures for the initial placement of the students andsubsequent monitoring of their progress; guidelines fororganizing instruction; and measurement tools and evalu-ation procedures.2
These concepts were developed through the systematic application
of research and development strategies to the improvement of educational
practice by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive
Learning and cooperating educational agencies. Klausmeier and others
explain:
A system of Individually Guided Education is a com-prehensive system of education and instruction designedto produce higher educational achievements through pro-viding well for differences among students in rate oflearning, in learning style, and in other characteristics.IGE is more comprehensive than individualized instructionwhen individualized instruction is viewed as instructionin which a student learns through interacting directly,with instructional materials or equipment with little orno assistance from a teacher. In IGE self-instructionalmaterials or systems are simply one important kind ofinstructional material or medium to be used in instruc-tional programming for the individual.3
The Waterford Reading Instructional Model (WRIM) is an adaptation
of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development employed to meet
2Wayne Otto and Eunice Askov, Rationale and Guidelines: The
Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills Development (National Computer Sys-tems, 1972), pp. 1-2.
3H. J. Klausmeier, M. Quilling, J. S. Sorenson, R. S. Way andG. R. Glasrud, Individually Guided Education and the Multi-Unit Elemen-
tary School (University of Wisconsin Research and Development Centerfor Cognitive Learning), p. 15.
4
the unique needs of the Waterford School District. 4 The Design offers
a means of organizing materials and establishes procedures to permit
efficient retrieval of the:a. It allows for an eclectic approach to
instruction and may be used with any OtIvelopmental reading program.
Statement of Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the value of
familiarizing third grade teachers with specific skills associated with
the reading process and to determine and describe the effects of using
the word-attack element of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills
Development (WRDSD), as an instructional management system for improv-
ing the reading skills achievements of pupils in third grade. A secon-
dary purpose was to determine the differences and/or similarities be-
tween high, middle, and low aptitude student sub-groups within the
treatment group. It was also a secondary purpose to determine the dif-
ferenc^ and/or similarities of male and female sub-groups within the
treatment group.
Hypotheses
This study may be considered an investigation into the realm of
reading research. Certainly every elementary teacher who takes seri-
ously the teaching of reading has experienced the quandary about basic
approaches in the teaching of reading. The point is also made that this
researcher has found no published study to evaluate the comparative
4John R. Heckerl, "Waterford School District--Evaluation Report
of an Instructional Management Model for the Improvement of Reading,"Second report submittedto the Michigan Department of Education--Experimental and Demonstration Center Programs, July, 1974, p. 6.
t6
5
value of this systematic, diagnostic and prescriptive approach to read-
ing being used in the Waterford District. More definite information
than that available is needed for analyzing, planning and assessing the
changes resulting from the introduction of a systematic, diagnostic and
presctiptive approach to the teaching of reading. Of particular inter-
est to the investigator are the relationships and changes stated in the
following null hypotheses which were investigated.
1. There are no differences in reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary or total reading achievement
resulting from the use of the Wisconsin Design for
Reading Skill Development. ( WDRSD)
2. There are nc, differences in reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary or total reading achievement
between high, middle, and low aptitude student
sub-groups resulting from the use of the Wis-
consin Design for Reading Skill Development.
(WDRSD)
3. There are no differences in reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary or total reading achievement
between male and female student sub-groups re-
sulting from the use of the Wisconsin Design for
Reading Skill Development. (WDRSD)
Methodology
Procedure: The experimental group consisted of 285 third grade
students who received WDRSD treatment. The control group consisted of
17
6
220 third grade students who did not receive WDRSD treatment. This
study consisted of two groups of children with adequate homogeneity
within the groups for the purposes of the research. To insure that
there was adequate homogeneity between experimental and control group's,
only children from Title I elementary schools were included. They were
all third graders during the spring of 1974 and had been in regular
attendance at their respective elementary buildings during the 1973-74
school year. During the 1973-74 school year students in the treatment
group were diagnostically evaluated using the WDRSD assessment materials.
The teacher then prescribed learniv experiences that were specific for
the individual child. The teacher taught to whatever weaknesses were
apparent in the individual child's diagnostic reading profile. During
the month of May, 1974, all students in the experimental and control
groups were given the Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude. All child-
ren involved in this study were also given the Comprehensive Test of
Basic Skills as a post-test during the month of May, 1974.
Analysis of Data: The dependent variables in this study are
reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and total reading as meas-
ured by the corresponding reading sub-tests of the Comprehensive Test
of Basic Skills Form S 1973. Since intact classes were used, academic
aptitude was measured by the Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude
(1970) Norms. If there had been a significant difference between the
treatment and control groups on this measure along with a correlation
between aptitude and reading comprehension, then academic aptitude
would have been used as a covariant. There was not a significant dif-
ference between the treatment and control groups on this measure;
1 8
7
therefore, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted with the depen-
dent variable. Data were analyzed through the services of Systematic
Studies Department, Oakland Schools, Pontiac, Michigan.
Definition of Terms
Throughout this study the following terms were used and are
defined as follows:
1. Individually Guided Education (IGE) is a systematic
conceptual scheme of elementary education that in-
cludes: a statement of behavioral objectives, an
instructional program of materials, equipment, and
student and teacher activities designed to achieve
the objectives; procedures for monitoring progress;
guidelines for organizing instruction; and measure-
ment tools and evaluation procedures.
2. Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development (WDRSD)
conforms to the concept of individually guided educa-
tion (IGE).
3. Waterford Reading Improvement Model (WRIM) is a local
adaptation of ths.. Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill
Development.
4. Criterion referenced tests are tests constructed of
test items that are based on objectives which are
assessed with regard to an absolute or criterion
referent rather than a relative referent.
19
8
Basic Assumptions
This study was based on the following assumptions:
1. The Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills Form S 1973,
developed and published by California Test Bureau/
McGraw Hill Del Monte Research Park, Monterey,
California 93940, is a valid and reliable measure
of reading vocabulary, reading comprehension and
total reading.
2. The Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (1970 Norms),
developed and published by California Test Bureau/
McGraw Hill Del Monte Research Park, Monterey, Cal-
ifornia 93940, is a valid and reliable measure of
academic aptitude.
3. There is adequate homogeneity between the experimen-
tal and control groups for the purposes of the study.
Since intact classes were used, it is assumed that
assessing academic aptitude and selecting students
from designated E.S.E.A. Title I elementary build-
ings provided the necessary homogeneity for the pur-
poses of this study.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Historical Overview
The teaching of reading has been in the vanguard of the education
process since the beginning of education of our history as a nation.
indicatedWozencraft1IndIcated that many different types of programs of varying
emphases were tried during this early period. However, from the be-
ginning of education in the first New England colonies, the teaching of
reading was the primary function of the school. As educators became
more experienced and sophisticated with the various components in the
teaching of reading, many philosophical differences began to be debated.
Much debate has occurred related to which method should be employed in
the teaching of reading.
The New England Primer was used almost universally during the
early part of the nation's history. It emphasized learning to read by
the alphabet or ABC method. Ichelsamer is credited as being one cif the
first to advocate the use of the phonics method. 2 Wozencraft3disclosed
that at a later date Webster introduced the Blue and Black Speller which
1Marian Wozencraft, "Reading Methods When Grandmother was a Girl,"Journal oLReading 8 (January 1965): 155.
2Donald L. Cleland and Harry B. Miller, "Instruction in Phonics
and Success in Beginning Reading," Elementary School Journal 65(February 1965): 280.
3Wozencraft, p. 158.
9
10
stressed the phonics approach as a means of unifying and purifying spoken
English in America.
It is also suggested by Wozencraft4 that the whole word method
began at the time of Joseph Jacotel (1770-1840) who thoughtfully worked
out detailed lessons on how,to present words. During the middle of the
19th Century, Horace Mann, persuaded of the disadvantages of the phonics
method, was advocating the teaching of beginning reading through the
whole word method. During this same period, were introduced McGuffey's
Eclectic Readers. These Readers increasingly gained favor in reading
programs, becoming the prototype of the modern basal.reader. 5
Changes in American practice related to the teaching of reading
during this time were directly attributable to Prussian influences and
the great German educator Henry Pestalozzi. Horace Mann gives us a
statement of the origin of Pestalozzi's famous method. Related to both
the whole word method and his method of object teaching, Mann describes
a reading lesson which he observed in a Prussian school.
The teacher first drew a house upon the blackboard, and here the
value of the art of drawing--a power universally possessed by Prussian
teachers--became manifest. By the side of the drawing and under it, he
wrote the word house in the German scripthand, and printed it in the
German letter. With a long pointing rod--the end being painted white
to make it more visible--he ran over the form of the letters--the child-
ren, with their slates before them and their pencils in their hands,
looking at the pointing rod and tracing the forms of the letters in the
air.
4lbid.
5Cleland and Miller, p. 281.
9
11
The next process was to copy the word house, both in script and
in print, on the slates. Then followed the formation of the sounds of
the letters of which the word was composed. 6
As the 19th Century came to a close a new analytic approach to
the teaching of reading was distinguishable. This method was being
used in some of the more progressive schools. The analytic method en-
tailed starting with the complete sentence, then breaking the sentence
down or analyzing it into words. 7About this time the sentence method
was advanced by George L. Farnham. It consisted of a readiness period
similar to that prescribed in today's reading program. The reading it-
self was taught by the discovery method, also being advocated today. 8
The impact of the Gestalt psychology was beginning to be felt in
educational circles during the early part of the 20th Century. The
theory lent credence to the introduction of whole words or complete sen-
tences as the initial unit of instruction. During the mid-thirties and
continuing until the mid-forties, the phonics decoding emphasis was in
a state of descendancy. However, it appears that education today is
renewing the emphasis placed on decoding in beginning reading instruc-
9tion.
It is generally recognized that all children in the same grade
are not able to read,t'out of the same textbook due to varying levels of
6Nila Banton Smith, American Reading Instruction (Park Ridge,Ill.: Silver Burdett Company, 1965), pp. 77-82.
7Wozencraft, p. 160.
8lbid., p. 155
9Jeanne Chall, Learning to Read, The Great Debate (New York:McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967), p. 1.
12
achievement and abilities.1° In reviewing the progress of reading in-
struction, Smith indicated that more innovation has been effected dur-
ing the last fifty years than during the 300 previous years.11 There
has been an enormous growth in controlled experimental programs since
the early 50's.
Individualizing Instruction
The following four fundamental principles concerning reading
should serve as a basis for evaluating trends in reading instruction,
according to Fay:
1. The act of reading involves both the perception ofword forms and the understanding of the author's meaning.
2. Children are different and they learn differently,with the result that methods and materials must be adjustedto these differences. It is in relation to differences thatthe concept of reading has greatest significances.
3. Reading is a tool that is used in many ways. Areading program must be broadly conceived to include a vari-ety of word-study skills, concern for personal development,hrough reading, and development of comprehension and inter-pretation skills.
4. Inasmuch as reading is a broad avenue to learning,the reading program must also be concerned with students'reading-study skills in content areas. The reading ofstories in a reader, or development of mechanical skills,could hardly be conceived as a total reading program.12
Fay13
also points out that growth in reading achievement is but
part of the total growth pattern of an individual. Growth in reading
1 °Ibid., p. 13
1 1Nila Banton Smith, "What Have We Accomplished in Reading," TheEducation Digest 22 (September 1961): 42
12Leo Fay, "Trends in the Teaching of Elementary Reading," Phi
Delta Kappan 41 (November 1966): 347
13Ibid., p. 346.
" 4
13
cannot be set apart from other aspects of growth. It is not a separate
strand of learning that can be pulled out and worked on whenever an
adult decides to teach a child to read. Scientific investigations rec-
ognize that reading is an integral part of total child growth. Reading
maturation accompanies physical growth, mental growth, emotional and
social aaturity, experiential background, and language development.
Arguments for breaking down uniformity of instruction gained sup-
port as measurements became more sophisticated. Wallach and Kogan14
described how children differed in both intelligence and creativity.
Guilford15 discusses differences in terms of at least 80 elements of
intellect. It also has become clear, froth the writing of Thomas and
Thomas16
that great differences between ability and performance are
possible and that inequalities in intellect, physical ability, and
social behavior, great in childhood, increase as students move through
the grades. As educators became familiar with these and other studies,
they began to make changes in both curriculum and instruction.
In addition to the advances in educational measurements, there
were significant developments in instructional theory. Three major
movements seem evident in lc.search in instructional theory. Each of
these contributes toward the individualization of instruction. The
first of these can be identified as the body of research based on the
programmed approach to learning and the reinforcement work done by
14M.A. Wallach and N. Kogan, Modes of Thinking in Young Children
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965).
15J. P. Guilford, The Nature of Human Intelligence (New York:
McGraw Hill, 1967).
16R. M. Thomas and S. M. Thomas, Individual Differences in the
Classroom (New York: McKay, 1965).
14
B. F. Skinner. 17This work has resulted in the development of programs
for pacing cognitive learning at various rates and the provision of
reinfdrcement for the learner when a correct response is made to a
problem or question.
While Skinner's work largely has been done with animals, pigeons
in particular, he has captured a following of educators. Programmed
teaching by text and machine became popular in the early 1960's. Such
teaching was an attempt to obtain the kind of behavioral control shown
possible in the laboratory. Programmed learning through texts with the
exception of reading has largely disappeared from the school scene.
However, the movement is not dead. Highly sophisticated programs are
being developed for use with the computer. Programs range from grad-
uate level courses or course support programs in physics, chemistry
and biology to elementary mathematics and reading.
Another movement is in the area of structural analysis and has
its base in the work of Jean Piaget.18 His work also involves the
cognitive level of learning and with the new insight we have gained
in recent years in the cognitive development in children. He deals
with structural analysis of the curriculum and with a similar analysis
of the teaching art. Piaget's analysis of intellectual growth captured
the imagination of a wide audience. Piaget proposes that intelligence- -
adaptive thinking and action--develops in a sequence of stages related
to age. Each stage sees the elaboration of new mental abilities which
17B. F. Skinner, "Teaching Machines," Scientific American 205
(November 1961): 201-385. See also B. F. Skinner, Science and HumanBehavior (New York: Macmillan, 1953).
18Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Children, trans.,
M. Cook (New York: International Press, 1952).
26
15
set the limits and determine the character of what can be learned dur-
ing that period. Stage I continues from birth until age two. This
stage is referred to as ele sensory motor period. Stage II, the pre-
operational stage, encompasses ages two through seven. This is a period
of language acquisition aLd symbolic play. Stage III is the period of
concrete operations. Roughly, between the ages of seven and eleven
children begin to internalize actions. Children now do things in.their
heads: They can think about things rather than having to touch things.
Stage IV, the last stage, is the stage of formal operations. Between
the ages of twelve and fifteen youngsters begin to think about thoughts
and to reason.
Many educators who are followers of Piaget analyze the structure
of various disciplines with the notion that, by having scholars develop
a basic struciture for their disciplines and by coordinating this struc-
ture with the work of psychologists in analyzing the intellectual devel-
opment of the child, we will develop an instructional program which may
challenge the optimum learning power of the child. Many of the pro-
moters of this instructional theory see the acquisition of content as
the primary purpose of students.
A third movement which deals with the affective domain is trace-
able to the work that has been done by followers of Carl R. Rogers, and
is reflected primarily in the work of Arthur W. Combs. 19Combs recog-
nizes the importance of developing independently strong people in order
for them to function effectively in today's relativistic, ambiguous
19A. W. Combs, "Human Side of Learning," National Elementary
Principal 52 (January 1973): 38-42. See also A. W. Combs, D. L.Avila, and W. W. Purkey, The Helping Relationship Source Book (Boston:Allyn and Bacon, 1971).
27
16
society. The strength of Combs' research points to the importance of
how one feels about himself as a determiner of what he will learn, how
great his insight will be, and what functional use he will be able to
make-of-his own learnings and insights. Combs' research suggests that
when children are able to take responsibility for their own learning
their capacity to learn is accelerated over what might occur with well-
developed curriculum materials or intricately-paced programs with their
immediate reinforcements. The liberating effect of such an approach
seems to improve the child's opportunity to learn more than is being
taught, for it develops him as an independent person. Combs' major con-
cern is with motivating children. This critique is the theoretical and
research background, then, out of which comes the variety of practices
designed to individualize instruction.
Teaching needs to be pupil centered. It is not the method per
se that frequently is the crucial element in teaching. 20 The method
must be adapted to the pupil. The teacher must change techniques to
fit the learner's response characteristics. And a method of teaching
is adequate only if the teacher knows enough about the child so that
the method may be adapted to the specific child.21
One of the newer approaches to reading emphasizes the nature of
the learner and considers the individual child to be the determining
factor in the process around which all experiences must be planned and
all skills taught. Since each child displays different needs, charac-
teristics, and responses in the learning process, the teacher must
20Emerald Dechant, "Teacher Differences and Reading Method,"
Education 86 (September 1965): 42.
21William P. McLoughlin, "Individualization of Instruction vs.
Nongrading," Phi Delta Kappan 53 (February 1972): 379-380.
17
direct all instruction not to the group or to the class, but to the
individual. Stauffer pointed out that research on human growth and
development reveals certain important principles relevant to education.
1. No group has yet been found in which the individualscomposing it possess equal amounts of any one ability.
2. Performances vary so greatly as to indicate that nosingle requirement is adequate as a stimulus to a majorityof the group.
3. A study of the learning process discloses that itis absurd to set up as standard a definite quantity of per-formance and expect each member of the group to accomplishjust that amount and no other.22
Stauffer23
also stressed that primary consideration in schools
should be efficiency of instruction, rather than, as has so often been
true, ease of administration.
The Diagnostic and Prescriptive Role
Modern developmental reading programs start where the child is
and progress with him. Continual diagnosis of the individual child's
reading provides the basis for correcting his difficulties and for sup-
plementing his gaps in learning.
It is generally acknowledged that children do not learn at the
same rate, nor do they come to each new problem with the same back-
ground of experience. Therefore, a child may be able to learn one skill
quickly and lag on others. Harris has emphasized that the diagnosis of
individual needs is basic in planning a reading program. He stated:
22Russell G. Stauffer, "Individualized Reading Instruction--A
Backward Look," Elementary English 36 (May 1959): 338.
23Ibid., p. 341.
29
18
Many of the children who have problems in readinghave not been successful in programs which meet the needsof the majority of children. An analysis of a child'sspecific reading difficulties should precede instructionto discover his present level and areas of success orfailure.24
The National School Public Relation Association, during the or-
ganization's 1970 convention, released a report called "Reading Crisis:
The Problems and Suggested Solutions." Two of the conclusions, based
on recent research, are as follows:
The classroom teacher is the single most importantfactor in whether, and how well, a child learns to read.
Teaching should be carried on by enthusiastic teach-ers who are trained in identifying reading skills and inmatching problems appropriate corrective techniques andmaterials. 25
The importance of the teacher's accurate perception of pupil
ski,11 development in reading is presented in a variety of professional
literature. The premise is clear that in teaching any complex skill
such as reading, the appropriate sub-skills be sequentially taught in
a marn..:r that will result in the most efficient acquisition of the de-
sired ultimate skill. For this type of teaching to occur it is neces-
sary that the reading teacher maintain an accurate and continuing aware-
ness of the learner's developmental status.
Diagnosis without ensuing corrective prescription is of no value.
It remains clear, however, that accurate diagnosis is antecedent to
correction. This point is succinctly stated by Johnson when she says,
"It is true that teachers who best learn to read children can best help
24Albert J. Harris, How to Increase Reading Ability (New York:
Longmans, Green, 1956), pp. 285-286.
25NEA Reporter, July 24, 1970, p. 1.
30
19
children learn to read."26
The imperative nature of the diagnostic/prescriptive process is'
also alluded to by Johnson. She states, in part:
Ideally these interferences are detected and dealtwith at the earliest possible moment. It is crucial thatthey be assessedland corrected as early as possible.27
Dechant also gives emphasis to diagnosis as an integral part of
the schools reading program when he writes:
No reading program is complete without diagnosis.Every child has a right to continuous diagnosis. Teachersshould know what the child's present Agvel of achievementis and to what level he may progress."
Sustaining diagnostic efforts on the part of the reading teacher
is, according to Cohn and Cohn, a requisite to effective teaching.
In education, diagnosis must be continuous. In partthis is so because new learnings often depend on the al-ready learned skills and knowledges. This then places aresponsibility on the educator and especially on the read-ing teacher. She must ever be *lerted to new and changinggrowth of these boys and girls.29
Strang has added her support to the imperative cause of diagnosis
as shown in the following quotation:
A skillful teacher continuously interweaves diagnosisand instruction. In every lesson he notes student'sstrengths and weaknesses in reading and tries to findcauses of their lack_of progress. By tabulating and sum-marizing the information about all the students, theteacher can gain understanding of the class as a whole.
26Barbah Lea Johnson, "Maximum Teacher Effectiveness," The Read-
ing Teacher (November 1969): 126.
p. 130.
28Emerald V.'Dechaut, Improving the Teaching of Reading (Engle-wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 223.
29Stella M. Cohn and Jack Cohn, Teaching the Retarded Reader
(New York: Odyssey Press, Inc., 1967), p. 16.
31
20
The appraisal process pinpoints the, students' presentstage of development. Instruction starts from there andis guided by the teacher's knowledge of a psychologicalsequence of reading skills."
The Era of Instructional Management Systems
It must be clearly recognized that the individualization of
instruction requires complex decision-Making based upon a variety of
diagnostic information. Students are guided into individualized learn-
ing activities in accordance with their past achievements and present
needs and interests. Often, students accept greater responsibility for
directing their own learning. Keeping track of students, their achieve-
ments and their expectations is a monumental management task. A major
technological development has been the creation of sets of software to
support instructional management information systems. In turn, the
major function of such systems is to improve decision-making relative
to the curriculum and individual students. Waterford School District
and others are currently developing and testing instructional manage-
ment systems.
The investigator, therefore, will focus his attention in the
review of literature upon several instructional management systems that
hold promise for assisting teachers to manage reading instruction and
materials more effectively.
Individually Guided Education (IGE). "IGE is a comprehensive system
of education and instruction designed to produce higher educational
achievements through providing well for differences among students
30Ruth Strang, Diagnostic Teaching of Reading (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 28.
32
21
in rate of learning, learning style, and other characteristics."31
The major components of IGE are: (1) An organization for instruction,
a related administrative organization at the building level, and an-
other arrangement at the central office level, together these are called
a Multi-Unit School-Elementary (MUS-E); (2) A model of instructional
programming for the individual students; (3) A model for developing
measurement tools and evaluation procedures; (4) Curriculum materials,
related statements of instructional objectives, and criterion-references
tests and observation schedules; (5) A program of home-school communi-.
cations that reinforces the school's efforts by generating the interest
and encouragement of parents and adults whose attitudes influence pupil
motivation and learning; (6) Facilitative environments in school build -
;:cgs, school system central offices, state education agencies, and
teacher education institutions; (7) Continuing research and development
to generate knowledge and to produce tested materials and procedures.32
Stanford Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI). Since its beginning in
1965, this systems management approach has been committed to the devel-
opment of a reading program that was to be assisted by a computer that
would develop further models for instructional research and produce 4
practical learning systems. The project's most successful effort has
been individualization of instruction. This was demonstrated at the
completion of the first year of the project. Data showed a four thousand
31H. J. Klausmeier, M. Quilling, J. S. Sorenson, R. S. Way and
G. R. Glasrud, Individually Guided Education and the Multi-Unit Elemen-tary School (University of Wisconsin Research and Development Centerfor Cognitive Learning, 1971), pp. 15-30.
32Ibid.
3 3
22
main-line problem completion difference between low achievers and high
achievers. 33 The research data also indicated there was a difference
in the rate of progress through the curriculum and the fact that it was
not correlated with the response rate. The average response rate was
four per minute with small variations among the learners. Schemes of
optimizing learnings and other procedures for individualization were
said to be the reason for pu.pil success. 34
Southwest Regional Laboratory, Kindergarten Reading and Support Pro-
grams (SWRL-KRSP). This kindergarten reading program was described and
data on its developmental testing was presented by Baker. 35 The term
program is given the specific definition of "a system of instruction in
which the procedures used to achieve stated objectives are reproducible
from classroom to classroom." The program is objectives based, and
development follows systematic feedback and revision. Skills which are
object've-based include: ninety words for sight recognition, word
attack skills, and comprehension skills. Criteria of mastery perfor-
mance varies from seventy-five to eighty per cent. The program spans
thirty weeks with a daily rate of twenty minutes per day. Materials
include pupil booklets and sixty paperback reading books, planned for
use at a rate of two per week. Other evaluation data were reported by
33R. C. Atkinson, "Computerized Instruction and the LearningProcess," American Psychologist 23 (April 1968): 225-239.
34J. C. Fletcher and R. C. Atkinson, "An Evaluation of the
Stanford CAI Program in Initial Reading (Grades 1 through 13)," Un-published manuscript, Stanford University, 1971.
35E. L. Baker, "Developing a Research Based Kindergarten Read-
ing Program," Experiments in Kindergarten Reading (Inglewood, Calif."Southwest Regional Laboratory, 1969).
23
Sullivan; which illustrated how detailed formative evaluation leads to
program revision and improvement.36
Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI). Beck and Bolvink37 described
the first four years of IPI by the Learning Research and Development
Center at the University of Pittsburgh. They reported the main char-
acteristics of this approach are: (1) Opportunities provided for dif-
ferential rates of progress of learners through sequences of learning
objectives; (2) Learning mastery must be proven prior to moving into
the next objective; (3) Much reliance is placed on self-starting, self-
motivation, and self-evaluation on the part of the learner; (4) Emphasis
is placed on the development of individualized techniques and materials
of instruction.
Project Program for Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN). PLAN
functions on five major points as described by Flanagan.: (1) Learners
select their own learning objectives which are generated for grades one
to twelve with the teacher's help--five objectives, each requiring two
or three hours to achieve, are grouped into a module intended for about
two weeks work; (2) Teaching-learning units are developed for each mod-
ule: a teaching-learning unit
tive study routes; (3) Mastery
'subsequent pupil learnings and
lists objectives, materials and alterna-
of objectives is evaluated to determine
placements; (4) Guidance and individual
planning for pupils is provided through feedback relevant to success of
36H. J. Sullivan, "Variables Affecting the Success of a Beginning
Reading Program," Experiments in Kindergarten Reading (Inglewood, Calif.:Southwest Regional Laboratory, 1969).
3:
I. L. Beck and J. O. Bolvink, "A Model for Non-gradedness: TheReading Program for Individually Prescribed Instruction," Elementarynglish 46 (February 1969): 130-135.
3 5
24
performance, or prognoses of probably success in specific endeavors.
The pupils are familiarized with all of the available opportunities,
are aided in accepting and formalizing goals, and assisted in managing
their own development; (5) Pupil development is managed by micro-
teaching, modeling, and practice, followed by inservice training.
Finally, the computer is used as a clerical, teacher-support, manage-
ment device.38
Recent evaluation and research activities of Project
PLAN were reported by Wright.39
Concluded Advantages of Instructional Management System (WDRSD). Em-
ploying an Instructional Management System (WDRSD) with a generous sup-
ply of resources at hand should enable teachers to individualize in-
struction to a greater degree. That is, children who are making good
AP:
progress in skill development do nbt have to endure the drudgery of in-
struction in matters they have mastered. They can spend their time at
more p oductive tasks such as independent reading or special research
and reporting projects while the teacher is secure in the knowledge that
they have learned the basics. Those students who demonstrate less than
optimal progress can participate in exactly those activities which they
need in order to bring their skill profile into line. Wasted instruc-
tional effort, because a task was too easy or too difficult for a par-
ticular child is eliminated. Opportunities exist for cross -age or
38J. C. Flanagan, "Individualizing Education," Education 90(February-March 1970): 191-206.
39C. E. Wright, "Evaluation data and their uses in an individu-alized education program." American Institutes of Research. Paperpresented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,Miami, Florida, September, 1970. Also, "Project PLAN Progress Report,"Education 90 (February-March 1970): 261-269.
36
25
cross-grade grouping for short-term instruction in specific skills. The
System also provides teachers with a meaningful way to discuss student
progress with parents or the students themselves.
There are two other purported advantages claimed by some for the
use of Instructional Management Systems. An Instructional Management
System allows everyone--teachers, administrators, parents, students- -
to operate within a clearly established set of guidelines concerning
what is to be done, how it is to be done, and how you know whether or
not you have accomplished the objective. Global, diagnostically useless
evaluations are replaced by specific assessments which more clearly pre-
scribe instruction for a particular child or group.
Concluded Disadvantages of Instructional Management System (WDRSD). This
investigator would be remiss if he did not cite certain cautions regard-
ing research products that individualize and manage instruction.
Johnson and Pearson conclude that there are at least six things
that bother them about Instructional Management Systems.
1. Their psycholinguistic naivete. We know that languagesystems--the phonology, grammar and lexicon--are inter-dependent. In essence, language is indivisible; yetInstructional Management Systems seem to fractionateit and destroy its essential nature.
2. Their "assembly-line" underpinnings. We think the fac-tors involved in learning to read are too complex tobe dealt with through assembly-line thinking. In ouropinion these systems stress content, not process, inthe framework of a tightly organized structure leavinglittle room for incidental learning.
3. Their concern for skill at the expense of interest.Instructional Management Systems can becothe so con-cerned with observable and measurable that we losesight of things not so readily observable.
4. Their advocacy of sequencing separable reading skills.While the idea may appeal to our sense of logic, there
37
26
is precious little evidence to support the existenceof separate skills, let alone separate skills whichcan be placed into a sequence of hierarchy.
5. The validity of their assessment instruments. In-structional Management Systems assume that the testsprovided for measuring attainment of objectives arevalid indices of the skills at issue. Yet we are un-aware of any documentation which would suggest thatthe sub-tests in any of the systems have been vali-dated by relating sub-test performance to any gener-ally accepted measure of a real reading task.
6. The very notion of mastery itself. What is at issueis whether or not mastering a specific skill improvesa child's ability to read or comprehend running test.Why bother with Instructional Management Systems ifthere is no payoff in the criterion task (reading)which the whole system ought to be trying to improve.40
Arthur Brown reflects that Instructional Management Systems may
be viewed as the "inappropriate applications" of the engineering ration-
ality.
On the matter of taste, I must confess to a certainantipathy to the mechanistic orientation of the movement.People seem to disappear or move to the wings of the edu-cational stage while tape recorders, file cabinets, com-puters, records, models, and flow charts move to the cen-ter. The terminology leaves me cold: inputs, outputs,feedback, systems analysis, delivery of educational ser-vices. Finally, the philosophy: pure scientific realism.If the proponents of the movement do have a theory of manand a theory of reality that are supportive of their edu-cational theory--and often this is not the case--it is thatpeople are merely machines, only more complex; that theyare nothing more than products of their conditioning; andthat all things, including human qualities, are objectifi-able, quantifiable and predictable.41
Concern for efficiency has required some educators to employ a
management ideology, one whose fundamental interest is in the strict
40Dale D. Johnson and David P. Pearson, "Skills Management Sys-
tems: A Critique," The Reading Teacher 28 (May 1975): 757-64.
41A. Brown, "What Could Be Bad? Some Reflections on the Account-
ability Movement," English Journal 62 (March 1973): 461-63.
38
27
control of human activity so that schools can efficiently shape their
raw material (that is, students) into predetermined products. Demands
for a business oriented accountability and competency based performance
measures have their historical base in the early twentieth century re-
form movements concern for efficiency. Selden and Apple emphasize this
concept.
Now no one will quarrel with the aim of making edu-cation more effective (though the conflict over what thismeans is critically important). However, the fact thatthe business world is the touchstone against which we areto compare our efforts makes it critically important thateducators realize that this very comparison is a continu-ation of the factory orientation implicit in so much ofthe educational literature of this century. Once thisrealization sinks in, then we must begin to raise seriousquestions concerning the adequacy of employing businessmodels for dealing with what are basically ethical andpolitical, not technical, questions in education. Letus look historically first.42
During the last three years a computer assisted approach to
accountability and performance based instruction has been developed.
This system represents an application of data processing to the tasks
of specifying behavioral objectives, curriculum development, achieve-
ment monitoring and instructional resources retrieved. Both in, theory
and in limited research projects the practical value of these concepts
has been substantiated. However, until recently many of the models
used to implement these concepts frequently become too cumbersome and
expensive when put to the test of broad-scale application. 43
42Steven Selden and Michael W. Apple, "What May a 75-Year Involve-ment with the Language and Ideology of Business Tell Us," EducationalLeadership 32 (April 1975): 453.
43R. W. Bill Brown, "A Systems Approach to Performance Based In-struction," Educational Technology 15 (April 1975): 58.
89
28
Summary
From the beginning of education in the United States, reading
has had the primary role and has been in the forefront of the entire
educational process. The history of reading instruction indicates
clearly that attempts to individualize instruction are not new. Much
of what went on in one-room schools was directed toward individual or
very small groups of students. Thz history also shows that until edu-
cation began to serve such a large portion of the population, education
was individualized. With the large numbers of students entering schools
in the early part of this century grade-level groups were formed and
individualized instruction diminished. However, the later decades of
this century saw a reaction against the age-graded, lock-step system in
which nearly all students, regardless of differences among them, were
constrained to study the same materials in the same way for the same
length of time.
Innovative programs are attempting to individualize instruction.
Many purportedly expLrimantal programs have been abandoned because they
have been label changes only and have not placed the material and in-
struction at the level of Coe learner.
Children have been placed in reading programs without sufficient
knowledge of their achievement levels. It must be kept clearly in mind
that the individualization of instruction requires complex decision-
making based upon a variety of diagnostic information. Students are
guided into individualized Learning activities in accordance with their
past achievements and present needs and interests. Good diagnostic
tests are now available and these, along with good teacher judgment,
4 0
29
can provide adequate placement. Continual diagnosis of the individual
child's reading provides the basis for correcting his difficulties and
for supplementing his gaps in learning.
The development of technology adaptable to education has had
effects on the movement toward individualizing instruction. Many early
attempts at individualizing instruction were thwarted by a lack of re-
sources, and especially by the tremendous amount of clerical work re-
quired. Sometimes, even more detrimental than the actual clerical work
itself, was the time lag between testing and the return of the informa-
tion. Information often did not reach the classroom in time to make a
difference. Instructional Management Systems promise to provide the
teacher with a better way of recording individual student progress. In-
cluded in this summary are several Instructional Management Systems,
that have been reviewed by this investigator: (1) Project Program for
Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN); (2) Individually Prescribed
Instruction, (IPI); (3) The STANFORD Model of Computer Assisted In-
struction, (CAI); (4) Southwest Regional Laboratory's Kindergarten Read-
ing and Support Program (SWRL-KRSP); (5) Coleman's Educational Engineer-
ing; (6) Programmed Tutoring; and (7) Kettering Foundation's Institute
for the Development of Educational Activities (I/D/E/A) and the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin's Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learn-
ing, which together developed an approach known as Individually Guided
Education (IGE). Out of this work the Wisconsin Design for Reading
Skills Development (WDRSD) evolved as a prototypic instructional manage-
ment system for reading.
4 1
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a signif-
icant difference between pupils in an Instructional Management Reading
System Program and pupils in a traditional reading program. Chapter III
was designed to describe: (1) The educational setting and population,
(2) The subjects, (3) The operation of the program, (4) Instrumentation,
(5) Instruments used.
Statements of general hypotheses made earlier in Chapter I will
be reinstated in testable form.
The Educational Setting and Population
Waterford School District was selected for this study. The edu-
cational setting and population of this study were within the geographic
confines of the Waterford Schools. The Waterford School District is a
suburban community located in the geographical center of Oakland County.
It is not a community in the true sense of the word, but more closely
resembles a confederation of sub-communities that so often characterizes
America's "newer suburbs." The fragmentation into sub-communities has
resulted in a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds of groups and
often diverse positions on educational issues. The citizens strongly
support education as evidenced by the higher than average voted school
millage accompanied by a lower than average state equalized valuation.
30
42
31
There are approximately 18,000 students'in Waterford's twenty-
seven elementary and six secondary schools. Waterford citizens and
educational leaders alike are having to deal with a rapid change of
educational realities related to this student population. For over
two decades Waterford was a rapidly growing community. At present this
growth has stopped and all signs point to a period of declining or sta-
bilizing enrollments. Over the same period of time the district was
experiencing a high staff turnover rate; a 25 percent change of staff
from one academic year to the next was not unusual. This rate has now
declined to 4 percent. Education has become a high cost item; per
pupil costs have increased 300 percent in the last decade. Further,
the relationships between staff members have changed due both to the
legally mardated alterations resulting from professional negotiations
and changes in the social economic milieu of the 1970's.
Thirty-three buildings comprise the district's school plant
facilities. They include twenty-seven elementary schools containing
grades, K-6, three junior high schools--grades 7-9, and three senior
high schools--grades 10-12. The per capita pupil cost in 1973-74 was
a little over $1,115.00, which is slightly over the average per capita
expenditure in the state. The state equalized valuation of the dis-
trict in 1973-74 was approximately $290,344,820.00, with a total tax
rate of 37.53 mills and a 1974-75 budget in excess of $20,000,000.00.
The pupil-teacher ratio in elementary schools was 28.2:1 in 1973-74.
An average salary for teachers with ten years of teaching experience
was $14,900.00.
The need, at this time in the Waterford Community Schools, is to
apply a systematic planning model to the education of Waterford youth.
4 3
32
A system of identifying desired goals and objectives and the assessing
of the status of the achievement of the desired educational objectives
will enable the district staff to allocate financial and human resources
to the areas of greatest need. What had :lust been described is, of
course, an educational needs assessment. This needs assessment by the
district led to the selection of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills
Development as an Instructional Management System.
The Wisconsin Design was selected by the school district on an
experimental basis for several reasons. First, it met the requirements
that teachers expressed in a district-wide survey for a structured or-
ganization for teaching reading skills. Secondly, the Design was flex-
ible enough to allow adaptation to local needs. On a broader scale, the
Design was considered as a vehicle to launch the district into objec-
tive based reading instruction while local development of this concept
was continuing. Thirdly, the Design was, in itself, an accountability
model. Why is it now urgent to apply such a planning model? It is
not a new need; to some extent good education has always required good
planning, but until the Michigan Department of Education provided the
leadership in developing tha Michigan Accountability Model the technol-
ogy of systematic educational planning was not widely known and accepted
in the Michigan education community.
The State Board of Education has adopted a six-step educational
management system as a guide for improving Michigan education. The six
steps are: The identification of common goals, the development of per-
formance objectives, the assessment of educational needs, the analysis
1Waterford Model for Instructional Planning, Waterford School
District, 1974.
4 4
33
of delivery systems, the evaluation and testing of these systems or pro-
grams, and recommendations for educational improvement. 2
Evidence that has been compiled over the past several years indi-
cates that the Waterford community has changed. From 1967-73 increasing
numbers of young people have dropped out of school before graduation.
Similarly, Michigan Educational Assessment Program academic aptitude
scores (see Table 1) have steadily decreased from 1967-74 at the fourth
grade level.
TABLE]:
WATERFORD FOURTH GRADEWORD RELATIONSHIP SCORE PROFILE
51
50C)
e-1
"4 49I
C)
0 48P0
47
46
69-70 70-71 71-72 72-73 73-74
Other unobtrusive data suggest an erosion of the socio-economic
status of many of the sub-communities in the district. These data point
out that the educational program designed for the sixties and before may
no longer be appropriate and change may be needed. But we can no longer
2Michigan Department of Education, Research, Evaluation andDevelopment Services, Michigan Educational Assessment Program FirstReport: Objectives and Procedures (Lansing: Michigan Department ofEducation, August 1973), p. 7.
45
34
afford the previously used broken front approach to change; therefore,
Waterford is currently moving to an educational management systems
approach for the teaching of reading.
The Waterford public and educational community have long sup-
ported innovation and change in education. Perhaps the newness of the
community and resultant growing pains requiring rapid change have con-
tributed much toward this efceptance. Whatever the factors, Waterford
citizens support systematic planning and were among the first in Michi-
gan to organize a citizens' group to identify common goals of education.
These were ratified by the Waterford Board of Education in 1972. 3
The Subjects
The subjects involved in this study were: Third grade pupils in
thirteen different elementary school buildings of the Waterford School
District during the 1973-74 school year. Listed below are the names of
the Waterford elementary schools from which subjects for the study were
taken.
Third grade subjects at the following Waterford elementary
schools were exposed to the Wisconsin Reading Design Treatment. (Ex-
perimental Group)
1. William Beaumont Community School
2. Hudson Covert Community School
3. Donelson Community School
4. Lotus Lake Community School
5. Henry R. Schoolcraft Community School
6. Williams Lake Community School
3Waterford School District, Research and Evaluation Division,
Needs Assessment Report to the Board of Education, Section E, 1972.
46
35
Third grade subjects at the following Waterford elementary schools
were not exposed to the Wisconsin Reading Design Treatment. (Control
Group)
1. Crescent Lake Community School
2. Laura Smith Haviland Community School
3. Della Lutes Community School
4. Frank J. Manley Community School
5. Pontiac Lake Community School
6. Riverside Community School
7. Stringham Community School
The subjects that comprise this 1973-74 group were third grade
pupils in regular, self-contained classroom assignments in the Water-
ford School District. This 1973-74 group was divided into an experi-
mental and control group for the purposes of this study.
The experimental group was composed o.f the total number of third
grade pupils that were in 14 individual classrooms, in 6 different ele-
mentary buildings and were exposed to one year of Wisconsin Reading
Design treatment. These 14 classrooms totaled 285 pupils; 148 boys and
137 girls, whose average agu was eight years old. The experimental
group subjects were taught by 14 regularly assigned third grade class-
room teachers.
The experimental group subjects were taught by their regularly
assigned third grade teachers, who with the support of their principal
had volunteered to try the Word Attack element and the individualized
instructional management approach of the Wisconsin Design for Reading
Skills Development as a systematic planning and teaching model during
the 1973-74 school year.
4 7
36
Two hundred and twenty subjects in the control group of this
study were taken from 11 individual classrooms, in 7 different elemen-
tary buildings, and were not given special treatment by exposing them
to one year of Wisconsin Reading Design treatment. There were 113 boys
and 107 girls represented in the total, whose mean age was eight years
old. The control group subjects were taught by 11 regularly assigned
third grade classroom teachers.
It is important to note that as an ex-post fact study none of
the pupils nor the teachers (1973-74) were aware at that time that their
classrooms' reading achievement skills would be retrieved in the future
from the pupils' cumulative records to become subjects in a disserta-
tion study on the effects of the Wisconsin Design in reading comprehen-
sion, reading vocabulary and total reading skills achievement in 1975.
The schools involved in this study are predominantly white with
a minority population of approximately 4 percent. The students are
assigned to classes based on a heterogeneous grouping method. In the
spring of 1973, the experimental program concept was presented to the
third grade teachers who would work with the experimental group. The
14 experimental classes were selected from among the district's third
grade teachers who expressed a desire to participate in the program.
The 11 control classes wera selected from within the district, and with
equivalent socio-economic background. 4
The 1973-74 subjects of this study total 505 third grade pupils,
in 25 regular, self-contained classroom assignments found in 13 of the
4John R. Heckerl, "Waterford School District Evaluation Report
of an Instructional Management Model for the Improvement of Reading,"- -A Michigan Department of Education Experimental and Demonstration Cen-ters Program Title III, July 1974, pp. 6-7.
4 8
37
district's 27 elementary schools. This group was composed of 261 boys
and 244 girls with the average ages for both boys and girls being eight
years old. These subjects were to be named the total project group.
The total project group, which included both the experimental and con-
trol groups, were not keenly aware that the experimental group were
receiving some sort of special instruction which they could identify
as the Wisconsin Design. However, in many ways it did not seem much
different to the students involved than it was before in their language
arts-reading instruction. The pupils were still being grouped for read-
ing instruction, perhaps more often, and they were aware of taking many
more tests prior to being assigned to instructional needs groups. These
tests were the diagnostic pretests of the Wisconsin Tests of Reading
Skills Development which helped assess instructional needs prior to the
skills cycle being taught.
The Operation of the Program
The eleven control classes selected operated a traditional three
groups, self-contained classroom reading program. No changes, sugges-
tions, or recommendations were made or were suggested to the teachers
involved with the control classes. Nor was there any attempt to in-
fluence their teaching in any way.
The fourteen experimental classes were taught by teachers who
used the word-attack element of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills
Development (WDRSD). Various meetings were conducted in order to ex-
plain and to plan the program in detail, and to enlist the aid and
approval of both the staff and the parents.
The Wisconsin Design is primarily an instructional management
4 9
38
model in reading. It provides for an assessment of an individual stu-
dent's reading skills, the means for teachers to constantly monitor the
progress of their students, and a profile of skill attainment for each
student. Instructionally, the Design provides the teacher with an ex-
tensive reading skills sequence, an index of materials to teach those
skills, and criterion-referenced tests to evaluate skill attainment.
Forty hours of in-service sessions were4scheduled initially to
familiarize teachers with the Instructional Management System (WDRSD)
concept. Audio-visual aids and simulation activities were employed.
Teachers attending produced an average of 63 percent correct responses
on the pretest of the Reading Instructional Management System (WDRSD)
concepts. The post test average for this group was 80 percent correct
responses. Included in the appendix is a copy of the in-service
assessment measure to evaluate the sessions, and a copy of the work-
shop agenda.
Included in the appendix is a questionnaire which was completed
by the teachers at all treatment schools at the end of the 1973-74
school year. In general, the teachers were positive about the program
indicating that they were Letter teachers of reading and that their
students had benefited.
Skill assessment was initiated in May, 1973 using the revised
Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skill Development. Following scoring of
the tests and completion of the pupil profile cards, teachers met in
planning sessions to group students for skill instruction. Each skill
group met for three weeks of instruction. At the end of this period,
students were assessed on a particular skill to determine if that skill
had been mastered (80 percent correct response was assumed to indicate
50
39
mastery). Skills were not taught during the week following the admin-
istering of the mastery test. This week was used by teachers for art
or science activities, review of previously taught reading skills, or
independent reading activities. During this week, teachers also met
in planning sessions to regroup students for further skill instruction
and to decide upon the materials to be used.
A variety of materials that were readily available to teachers
was of great importance to the program. Rather than using a single
workbook for teaching skills, teachers drew upon a variety of sources
for teaching a specific skill. Many sources of materials were examined
and appropriate pages or activities coded to a specific skill. When
a teacher taught that skill, she could select the materials she wanted
to use from an extensive skill resource file.
The following chronology of events (see Table 2) 'reports specific
activities occurring in the operation of the program.
Instrumentation
The design of this study conforms to the Post Test Control Group
Only Method. Therefore, data were utilized from the Comprehensive Test
of Basic Skills which was routinely administered by classroom teachers
in May 1974 to all pupils in third grade, according to the district's
standardized test policy. The district's test policy was developed for
the purpose of year-end evaluation. This investigator used only the
reading section of this test. Raw scores in vocabulary, comprehension,
and total reading were derived for each pupil. The data were analyzed
by computer using a model for analysis of variance.
The Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (1970 Norms) vas admin-
istered during May 1974 to all students in both the control and the
51a
40
TABLE 2
CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR PROGRAM EVENTS -1-
May 1973
May 1973
June 1973
August 1973
September 1973
October 1973
December 1973
February 1974
March 1974
April 1974
May 1974
June 1974
July 1974
Administer Wisconsin Design Tests to projectschools
Administer Gates-MacGinitie Tests to someproject schools
Initial in-service
Hire aides, arrange room facilities, ordermaterials
Re-test where neededPrepare pupil profile cards and classroom chartsAllocate time for daily skill development
Parent meetings--all project schoolsBegin skill group instruction
Dissemination--Lakeland TribuneDissemination--Faculty Advisory CouncilBegin Advisoty Council meetings
Correlate reading model with district computerAssisted learning programAdvisory Council
Dissemination--Birmingham SchoolsTitle III Project Directors meetingAdvisory Council
Begin preparing evaluation formsAdvisory Council
Gates-MacGinitie post testing some projectschools
State Validation--first visit
Evaluation data to data processing
Complete evaluationMake test revisionsAdd new materialsState Validation--second visit
5n
41
experimental groups. This test was chosen because it is used with in-
tact classes. If there had been a significant difference between the
treatment and control groups on this measure along with a correlation
between aptitude and reading comprehension, then academic aptitude
would have been used as a covariant. There was not a significant dif-
ference between the treatment and control groups on this measure;
therefore, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted with the depen-
dent variable.
Raw scores derived from the Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude
were used to categorize subjects in both the treatment and control
groups into high, middle, and low aptitude groupings. Those pupils
placed in the high aptitude grouping had a raw score of sixty or above
on the test. Those pupils placed in the middle aptitude groupings had
a raw score of between forty and fifty-nine on the test. Those pupils
placed in the low aptitude groupings had a raw score of between zero
and thirty-nine. The mean scores on this measure for the Experimental
and Control groups were 49.8 and 49.1 respectively.
Data were analyzed through the services of Systematic Studies
Department, Oakland Schoo12, Pontiac, Michigan.
Instruments Used
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills
The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills are a series of tests
with alternate forms for grades 2.5 through 12.0. The tests are pub-
lished by the California Test Bureau, a division of McGraw-Hill Inc.
They were standardized and have been in use since 1968. For the pur-
pose of this study only the reading portion of the tests was used.
53
42
The tests were not intended to measure achievement in specific
course content as reflected in textbooks for various grade levels.
However, performance on these tests is necessarily dependent on the
possession of relevant knowledge and is affected by the grade level
at which the skill is first introduced. The tests were developed for
national use by students who had been taught by different approaches.
Test items should be answered as readily by students taught by a tra-
ditional approach as by those who were taught by any of the newer
approaches.
The tests were standardized by using some 18,000 students froffi
schools randomly selected from all regions and states of them United
States. They were standardized after two experimental tryouts of the
tests were conducted with groups of 8,000 and 10,000 students. Level 1
of the tests was used in this study as it was designed and normed to
include students in grades 2.5 - 4.9.
lie reading section of the tests consisted of two parts. The
test was designed to obtain scores for vocabulary, comprehension, and
total reading. The vocabulary section consisted of forty items. The
students would choose from among four alternatives the word that had
the best meaning for the underlined word used in context in the stem
of the item. There were forty-five items in the comprehension section
designed: (1) to measure the student's ability to recognize directly
stated details; (2) to comprehend the meaning of ideas by simple re-
wording and paraphrasing; (3) to interpret what is read by identifying
the main idea, perceiving relationships, drawing conclusions, and
making inferences; and (4) to extend interpretation beyond stated
5 I
43
information. The test used such selections as stories, poems, and
latters.5
There are three essential attributes of a good test: (1) stan-
dardization, (2) validity, and (3) reliability. The standardization of
the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills was carefully developed as re-
ported above. The reliability coefficient for this test was .81 using
the Pearson product moment correlation, and the validity of this test
ranges from .70 to .81. 6More information regarding the Comprehensive
Test of Basic Skills may be found in the Appendix.
Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA), 1970 Edition
The Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) was developed as
an instrument to assess the level of intellectual development attained
by the student, and to predict his-potential rate of progress and level
of success in school. The test is the successor of the 1963 California
Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity. The SFTAA includes four separately
timed subtests which measure vocabulary development (Vocabulary), Log-
ical reasoning (Analogies), quantitative relations (Sequences), and
meaningful memory (Memory). Vocabulary and Memory constitute the lan-
guage section; Analogies and Sequences make up the Non-Language section.
Reliability: Estimates were computed for each grade, level, and
sub-score using three different methods--internal consistency OKR205,
Interlevel articulation (correlations between scores on two levels of
the test administered to the same grade level), and test-retest. These
ranged from .65 to .96; .77 to .89; and from .82 to .96 respectively.
5California Test Bureau. Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills,Technical Manual. (Monterey California: McGraw-Hill Book Company,1968).
6Ibid.
55
44
Validity: Language--Non-language correlations ranged from .51
to .66 which suggests that the two sub-scales each measure aspects
(although somewhat different) of academic aptitude. The Technical
Bulletin also reports the relationship between SFTAA Scores and Cal-
ifornia Achievement Tests :cores. The two total batteries correlated
as follows for third grade. 7
Level
SFTAA
2
CAT-70
2
.86 (Grade 3)
More detailed information related to-this test may be found in the
appendix.
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests were administered to all third
grade students at three of the treatment schools and one control school.
The results of this testing will be given for reporting purposes only
in Chapter V of this study.
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Survey C was used. This
test is part of a new series of tests designed to cover grades one
through twelve. Survey C was designed for pupils in grades 2.5 - 4.5.
The tests were published in 1965.
Some 40,000 pupils were selected to-establish norms from thirty-
eight communities which were selected on the basis of size, geograph-
ical location, average educational level, and average family income.
Reliability: Alternate form reliability coefficients are re-
ported in the Technical Manual, ranging from .67 to .89 for Level C.
The range on Level C is as follows: (.67 - .89).
7Testing Catalog (1974-1975), Oakland Schools, 2100 Pontiac LakeRoad, Pontiac, Michigan, pp. 40-41.
56
45
Validity: Validity coefficients ranged from a low of .60 to a
high of .77.8
More detailed information regarding this test may be found in
the appendix.
The Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skills Development
The Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skills Development, Word Attack
pre-test and post-test instruments, forms p and q, the 1972 edition,
are criterion referenced with a mastery level of 80 percent suggested,
a reliability coefficient of over .80. There are four levels of tests
that range through the grades one through four. Levels A, B, and C
correspond to grades one through three. Level D is generally used in
grades four and above. Level A has four clusters of word attack skills
with several sequences for each cluster. Level B has four clusters
with ten skills sequences. Level C has six clusters with eight skill
sequences and Level D has three clusters with six skill sequences.
(See Appendix for the scope and sequence of skills objectives contained
in the Word Attack element of the WDRSD). Some test results will be
given in Chapter V related to The Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skills
Development and will be included by this investigator for reporting
purposes only, primarily to give the reader a better understanding of
The Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills Development.
Statement of Hypotheses in Null Form
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in reading com-
prehension between pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils in the Control
8Arthur I. Gates and Walter H. MacGinitie,.Gates MacGinitie Read-
ing Tests Technical Manual (New York: Teachers College Press, 1965).
46
group as measured by the CTBS reading comprehension subtest.
Symbolically Ho: Mw = Mc
H1: Mw 0 Mc
where Mw and Mc are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD group and the Control group respectively.
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in reading
comprehension between high aptitude pupils in the WDRSD group an44corr
responding high aptitude pupils in the Control group.
Symbolically HO: Mwh - Mch
H1: Mwh # Mch
where Mwh and Mch are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in reading
comprehension between middle aptitude pupils in the WDRSD group and
corresponding middle aptitude pupils in the Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H1: Mwm 0 Mcm
where Mwm and Mcm are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference in reading
comprehension between low aptitude pupils in the'WDRSD group and in the
corresponding low aptitude, pupils in the Control group.
58
47.
Symbolically Ho: Mwl = Mcl
H1: Mwl # Mcl
where Mwl and Mcl are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference in reading
vocabulary between pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils in the Control
group as measured by the CTBS reading vocabulary subtest.
Symbolically Ho: Mw = Mc
H1: Mw # Mc
where Mw and Mc are the mean scores on the CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference in reading
vocabulary between high aptitude pupils in tte WDRSD group and pupils
in the corresponding high aptitude Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwh = Mch
H1: Mwh # Mch
where Mwh and Mch are the mean scores on the CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference in reading
vocabulary between middle aptitude pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils
in the corresponding middle aptitude Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H1: MMm # Mcm
J9
48
where Mwm and Mcm are the mean scores on the CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference in total read-
ing between low aptitude pupils in the WDRSD treatment group and pupils
in the corresponding low aptitude Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwl = Mcl
H1: Mwl # Mcl
where Mwl and Mcl are the mean scores on the CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 9: There is no significant difference in total read-
ing between pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils in the Control group
as measured by the CTBS total reading subtest.
Symbolically H0: Mw = Mc
H1: Mw # Mc
where Mw and Mc are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading subtest
attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respectively.
Hypothesis 10: There is no significant difference in total read-
ing between high aptitude pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils in the
corresponding high aptitude Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwh = Mch
H1: Mwh # Mch
where Mwh and Mch are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading subtest
attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respectively.
60
49
Hypothesis llf There is no significant difference in total read-
ing between middle aptitude pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils in the
corresponding middle aptitude Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H1: Mwm # Mcm
where Mwm and Mcm are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading subtest
attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respectively.
Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference in total read-
ing between low aptitude pupils in the WDRSD group and pupils in the
corresponding low aptitude Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwl = Mcl
H1: Mwl # Mcl
where Mwl and Mcl are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading subtest
attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respectively.
Hypothesis 13: There is no significant difference in reading
comprehension between male pupils in the WDRSD group and male pupils
in the corresponding Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H1: Mwm # Mcm
where Mwm and Mcm are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 14: There is no significant difference in reading
comprehension between female pupils in the WDRSD group and female pupils
in the corresponding Control group.
61
50
Symbolically Ho: Mwf = Mcf
H1: Mwf 0 Mcf
where Mwf and Mcf are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 15: There is no significant difference in reading
comprehension between male pupils in the WDRSD group and female pupils
in the WDRSD group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mwf
H1: Mwm 0 Mwf
where Mwm and Mwf are the mean scores on the CTBS reading comprehension
subtest attained by the WDRSD male treatment group and the female WDRSD
treatment group respectively.
Hypothesis 16: There is no significant difference in reading
vocabulary between male pupils in the WDRSD group and male pupils in
the corresponding Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H1: Mwm 0 Mcm
where Mwm and Mcm are the mean scores on the CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 17: There is no significant difference in reading
vocabulary between female pupils in the WDRSD group and female pupils
in the corresponding Control group.
Symbolically H0: Mwf m Mcf
Hi: Mwf 0 Mcf
62
51
where Mwf and Mcf are the mean scores onthe CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD treatment group and Control group respec-
tively.
Hypothesis 18: There is no significant difference in reading
vocabulary between male pupils in the WDRSD group and female pupils in
the WDRSD treatment group.
Symbolically H0: Mwm = Mwf
H1: Mwm # Mwf
where Mwm and Mwf are the mean scores on the CTBS reading vocabulary
subtest attained by the WDRSD male treatment group and the female WDRSD
treatment group respectively.
Hypothesis 19: There is no significant difference in total
reading between male pupils in the WDRSD group and male pupils in the
corresponding Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H1: Mwm 0 Mcm
where Mwm and Mcm are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading subtest
attained by the WDRSD treaLatent group and Control group respectively.
Hypothesis 20: There is no significant difference in total
reading between female pupils in the WDRSD group and female pupils in
the corresponding Control group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwf = Mcf
Hi: Mwf 0 Mcf
where Mwf and Mcf are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading subtest
attained by the WDRSD treatment group respectively.
63
52
Hypothesis 21: There is no significant difference in total
reading between male pupils in the WDRSD group and female pupils in
the WDRSD treatment group.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mwf
H1: Mwm # Mwf
where Mwm and Mwf are the mean scores on the CTBS total reading sub-
test attained by the WDRSD male treatment group and the female WDRSD
treatment group respectively.
G
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a signif-
icant difference in reading achievement between students in an Instruc-
tional Management Reading Systems Program and students in a traditional
reading program. This part of the study identifies and describes the
effects of the Word Attack element of the Wisconsin Design treatment
during the 1973-74 school year on an expeyimental group of 285 third
grade subjects.
Of particular interest to the investigator are the relationships
and changes stated in the three general hypotheses presented in Chap-
ter I. In this chapter the general hypotheses have been restated in
statistical testable form.
Hypotheses one through twelve compare the experimental and con-
trol groups with group aptitude and aptitude subgroups in terms of
reading comprehension, reedtng vocabulary and total reading achievement.
Hypotheses thirteen through twenty-one compare the experimental and
control groups with sex subgroups in terms of reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary and total reading achievement. Reference tables
are provided to supply data for acceptance or rejection of the statis-
tically testable null hypotheses presented based on the .05 level of
confidence. The reference tables were developed and arranged to fur-
nish the reader with data related to the hypotheses advanced previous
53
54
to the reference table submitted. Statistically testable hypotheses
and their respective reference tables are coordinated with major con-
cerns expressed in the three general hypotheses stated in Chapter I and
are restated here for reader convenience.
1. There are no differences in reading comprehension, reading
vocabulary or total reading achievement resulting from the
use of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development.
(WDRSD)
2. There are no differences in reading comprehension, reading
vocabulary or total reading achievement between high, mid-
dle, and low aptitude student subgroups resulting from the
use of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development.
(WDRSD)
3. There are no differences in reading comprehension, reading
vocabulary or total reading achievement between male and
female student subgroups resulting from the use of the
Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development. (WDRSD)
The testable hypotheses presented generally compare reading
achievement between the treatment group and the corresponding non-
treatment control group. However, hypotheses fifteen, eighteen, and
twenty-one compare the male treatment group with the female treatment
group. The data used for testing hypotheses one through twenty-one are
the raw scores on the CTBS reading subtest, which are normative refer-
enced.
The order of presentation for this chapter will be to restate the
testable hypotheses, to cite the data, to state whether the hypotheses
are accepted or rejected.
6 6
55
Test of Hypothesis 1: The F-value derived from the analysis of
variance was .11 and thus there was no significant difference between
the means for the WDRSD and Control groups. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis was not rejected and the alternate hypothesis was not accepted.
Symbolically Ho: Mw = Mc
Test of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4: There was no significant dif-
ference between the reading comprehension scores attained by the high,
middle, and low WDRSD aptitude subgroups and the corresponding high,
middle, and low aptitude Control subgroups. Therefore, the null hypoth-
eses 2, 3, and 4 are not rejected and the corresponding alternate hy-
potheses cannot be accepted.
Symbolically H0: Mwh = Mch
H0: Mwm = Mcm
H0: Mwl = Mcl
Table 3 provides data to compare the means and standard deviations
of the treatment group (WDRSD) with the corresponding Control group.
Included in this table is the F-value derived from a one-way analysis
of variance with reading comprehension as the dependent variable. Fin-
ally, Table 3 provides data to compare means and standard deviations
between high, middle, and low aptitude subgroups of the treatment group
(WDRSD) and the corresponding Control group.
67
56
TABLE 3
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF WDRSD GROUPAND CONTROL GROUP BY APTITUDE SUBGROUPS
ON COMPREHENSION SUBTEST, CTBS
Means
WDRSD Group Control Group
26.1 25.1
StandardDeviation 11.8 12.1
AptitudeSubgroups
F = .11 NS
WDRSD Group Control Group
Standard StandardMeans Deviation Means Deviation
High 37.6 4.8 37.2 6.7
N 39 22
Miduie 26.1 11.4 25.5 11.8
N 212 163
Low 13.3 5.5 15.6 9.4
N 34 35
618
57
Test of Hypothesis 5: The F-value derived from the analysis of
variance was .006 and thus there was no significant difference between
the means for the WDRSD and Control groups. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis was not rejected and the alternate hypothesis was not accepted.
Symbolically H0: 1447 = Mc
Test of Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8: There were no significant dif-
ferences between the vocabulary scores attained by the high, middle, and
low aptitude Control subgroups. Therefore, the null hypotheses 6, 7,
and 8 are not rejected and the corresponding alternate hypotheses can-
not be accepted.
Symbolically Ho: Mwh = Mch
H0: Mwm = Mcm
Ho: Mwl = Mcl
Table 4 provides data to compare the means and standard devia-
tions -f the treatment group (WDRSD) with the corresponding Control
group. Included in this table is the F-value derived from a one-way
analysis of variance with reading vocabulary as the dependent variable.
Finally, Table 4 provides data to compare means and standard deviations
between high, middle, and low aptitude subgroups of the treatment group
(WDRSD) and the corresponding Control group.
69
58
TABLE 4
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF WDRSD GROUP ANDCONTROL GROUP SCORES BY APTITUDE SUBGROUPS
ON VOCABULARY SUBTEST, CTBS
Means
WDRSD Group Control 'Group
23.5 23.6
StandardDeviation 9.2 10.8
AptitudeSubgroups
F = .006 NS
WDRSD Group
StandardMeans Deviation
Control Group
StandardMeans Deviation
High 32.41 3.7 33.1 4.2
N .39 22
Middle 23.5 8.7 24.1 10.8
N 212 163
Low 13.6 6.4 15.0 8.5
N 34 35
59
Test of Hypothesis 9: The F-value derived from the analysis of
variance was .14 and thus there was no significant difference between
the means for the WDRSD and Control groups. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis was not rejected and the alternate hypothesis was not accepted.
Symbolically H0: Mw = Mc
Test of Hypotheses 10, 11, and 12: There were no significant
differences between total reading scores attained by the high, middle,
and low WDRSD aptitude subgroups and the corresponding high, middle,
and low aptitude Control subgroups. Therefore, the null hypotheses 10,
11, and 12 are not rejected and the corresponding alternate hypotheses
cannot be accepted.
Symbolically H0'
Mwh = Mch
Ho: Mwm = Mcm
H0: Mwl = Mcl
Table 5 provides data to compare the means and standard devia-
tions of the treatment group ( WDRSD) with the corresponding Control
group. Included in this table is the F-value derived from a one-way
analysis of variance with Total reading as the dependent variable.
Finally, Table 5 provides data to compare means and standard deviations
between high, middle, and low aptitude subgroups of the treatment group
(WDRSD) and the corresponding Control group.
71
60
TABLE 5
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF WDRSD GROUP ANDCONTROL GROUP SCORES BY APTITUDE SUBGROUPS
ON TOTAL READING SUBTEST, CTBS
Means
WDRSD Group Control Group
48.6 48.4
StandardDeviation 18.4 20.6
AptitudeSubgroups
F= .14
WDRSD Group
StandardMeans Deviation
Control Group
StandardMeans Deviation
High 66.4 13.1 70.6 9.9
N 39 22
Middle 48.7 16.7 48.5 19.4
N 212 163
Low 26.9 11.0 30.5 17.6
N 34 35
72
61
Test of Hypotheses 13 and 14: The derived F-value for the anal-
ysis of variance was .77 and thus there was no significant difference
between the mean scores for reading comprehension attained by WDRSD
males and females and the corresponding males and females of the Con-
trol group. Therefore, the null hypotheses 13 and 14 are not rejected
and the corresponding alternate hypotheses cannot be accepted.
Symbolically Ho: Mwm = Mcm
Ho: Mwf = Mcf
Test of Hypothesis 15: The derived F-value for the analysis of
variance was 20.9 and thus there was a significant difference between
the mean scores for reading comprehension attained by WDRSD males and
the mean scores attained by WDRSD females. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis 15 is rejected and the corresponding alternate hypothesis is
accepted.
Symbolically H1: Mwm # Mwf
There is a significant difference between the mean scores by sex on
the comprehension subtest at the .001 level. Further analysis using
the t-test showed the mean score for females in the WDRSD group to be
superior to the mean score for males in the WDRSD group at the 05
level.
Table 6 provides data to compare the means and standard devia-
tions of the treatment group ( WDRSD) with the corresponding Control
group. This table also provides data to compare male and female sub-
group means and standard deviations within the treatment group (WDRSD).
This table includes the treatment F-value, the sex F-value and the
interaction F-value which are derived from a one-way analysis of vari-
ance with reading comprehension as the dependent variable.
73
62
TABLE 6
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF WDRSD GROUPAND CONTROL GROUP SCORES BY SEX GROUPING
ON COMPREHENSION SUBTEST, CTBS
WDRSD Group
StandardMeans Deviation
Control Group
StandardMeans Deviation
MeansTotal
Male 24.0 10.8 22.6 12.4 23.4
N 148 113
SexF = 20.9
**
Female 28.4 12.6 28.0 11.2 28.2
N 137 107
MeansTotal 26.2 11.8
Treatment F = .77 NS
Interaction F = .32 NS
**Significant at the .001 level
63
Test of Hypotheses 16 and 17: The derived F-value for the anal-
ysis of variance was .08 and thus there was no significant difference
between the mean scores for reading vocabulary attained by WDRSD males
and females and the corresponding males and females of the Control
group. Therefore, the null hypotheses 16 and 17 are not rejected and
the corresponding alternate hypotheses cannot be accepted.
Symbolically HO: Mwm = Mcm
Ho: Mwf = Mcf
Test of Hypothesis 18: The derived F-value for the analysis of
variance was 12.0 and thus there was a significant difference between
the mean scores for reading vocabulary attained by WDRSD males and the
mean scores attained by WDRSD females. Therefore, the null hypothesis
18 is rejected and the corresponding alternate hypothesis is accepted.
Symbolically H1: Mwm Mwf
There is a significant difference between the mean scores by sex on the
reading vocabulary subtest of the .001 level. Further analysis using
the t-test showed the mean score for females in the WDRSD group to be
superior to the mean score for males in the WDRSD group at the .05 level.
Table 7 provides data to compare the means and standard devia-
tions of the treatment group (WDRSD) with the corresponding Control
group. The table also provides data to compare male and female sub-
group means and standard deviations within the treatment group ( WDRSD).
This table includes the treatment F-value, the sex F-value and the in-
teraction F-value, which are derived from a one-way analysis of vari-
ance with reading vocabulary as the dependent variable.
64
TABLE 7
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF WDRSD GROUPAND CONTROL GROUP SCORES BY SEX GROUPING
ON VOCABULARY SUBTEST, CTBS
WDRSD Group
StandardMeans Deviation
Control Group
StandardMeans Deviation
MeansTotal
Male 22.7 8.9 21.5 10.0 22.2
N 148 113
SexF = 12.0**
Female 28.4 12.6 28.0 11.2 28.2
N 137 107
MeansTotal 23.5 9.2
Treatment F = .08 NS
Interaction F = 2.5 NS
**Significant at the .001 level
76
65
Test of Hypotheses 19 and 20: The derived F-value for the anal-
ysis of variance was .01 and thus there was no significant difference
between the mean scores for total reading attained by WDRSD males and
females and the corresponding males and females of the Control group.
Therefore, the null hypotheses 19 and 20 are not rejected and the cor-
responding alternate hypotheses cannot be accepted.
Symbolically H0: Mwm = Mcm
H0: Mwf = Mcf
Test of Hypothesis 21: The derived F-value for the analysis of
variance was 18.3 and thus there was a significant difference between
the mean scores for total reading attained by WDRSD males and the mean
scores attained by WDRSD females. Therefore, the null hypothesis 21
is rejected and the corresponding alternate hypothesis is accepted.
Symbolically H1: Mwm # Mwf
There is a significant difference between the mean scores by sex on the
total reading subtest at the .001 level. Further analysis using the
t-test showed the mean score for females in the WDRSD group to be
superior to the mean score for males in the WDRSD group at the .05
level.
Table 8 provides data to compare the means and standard devia-
tions of the treatment group (WDRSD) with the cprresponding Control
group. The table also provides data to compare male and female sub-
group means and standard deviations within the treatment group (WDRSD).
This table includes the treatment F-value, the sex F-value and the in-
teraction F-value which aze derived from a one-way analysis of vari-
ance with total reading as the dependent variable.
r.nI
66
TABLE 8
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF WDRSD GROUPAND CONTROL GROUP SCORES BY SEX GROUPING
ON TOTAL READING SUBTEST, CTBS
WDRSD Group
StandardMeans Deviation
Control Group
StandardMeans Deviation
MeansTotal
Male 45.8 18.7 43.7 22.2 44.9
N 148 113
SexF = 18.3
**
Female 51.5 18.0 53.1 17.8 52.2
N 137 107
MeansTotal '48.5 18.4
Treatment F = .0 NS
Interaction F = 1.2 NS
*Significant at the .001 level
78
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The main purposes of this chapter were: (1) to report the find-
ings of the study, (2) to summarize the conclusions based on the anal-
ysis of the data, and (3) discussion which will include a review and
possible explanation for the findings and results of the study. The
chapter was organized by: (1) a restatement of the purpose, (2) a
review of the general hypotheses, (3) the delimitations of the study,
(4) a summation of the literature, (5) a review of the research design,.
(6) a report of the findings, (7) a statement of the conclusions, and
(8) a listing of the recommendations.
Summary
Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there was
a significant difference in growth in reading achievement between stu-
dents who were engaged in an Instructional Management Reading System
Program and students who were engaged in a traditional classroom read-
ing program. A secondary purpose was to determine the differences and/
or similarities between high, middle, and low aptitude student sub-
groups within the treatment group. It was also a secondary purpose to
determine the difference and/or similarities of male and female sub-
groups within the treatment group.
67
7 9
68
Information is limited in terms of general educational outcomes
of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skills Development throughout the
United States. Only limited outcome data were available concerning the
Design. This was one reason the present investigation was undertaken.
This investigator could not ascertain at this time whether this situa-
tion existed because of the relative recency of the research, or the
lengthy development and evaluation phases of the field testing.
Hypotheses
1. There are no differences in reading comprehension, reading
vocabulary or total reading achievement resulting from the
use of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development.
(WDRSD)
2. There are no differences in reading comprehension, reading
vocabulary or total reading achievement, between high, mid-
dle, and low aptitude student subgroups resulting from the
use of the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development.
(WDRSD)
3. There are no differences in reading comprehension, reading
vocabulary or total reading achievement between male and
female student subgroups resulting from the usgof the
Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development. (WDRSD)
Delimitations
To accomplish the objectives of this study the experimental group
was limited to 285 third grade students from six Waterford elementary
schools who received the WDRSD treatment. The Control group was limited
to 220 third grade students from seven Waterford elementary schools who
SO
69
did not receive WDRSD treatment. A11 schools are located in the Water-
ford School District, Waterford, Michigan.
It was also limited to experimental and control classrooms dur-
ing the 1973-74 school year.
The Literature
A review of the literature indicated that there is a history that
depicts the need for change in education in general, and reading in par-
ticular. A rapid acceleration in the rate of change has occurred in the
last decade; however, many of these changes were not grounded in good
scientific experimentation.
Many writers indicated that an effective reading program for
pupils must be individualized, and that the individual pupil is entitled
to work at the level, rate and learning style that he can function best
according to his unique characteristics. Reading, as a key to learning,
must I I geared to the needs of the pupil rather than to the system.
References consulted indicated the important role that diagnosis
and prescription plays in reading. Many pupils were placed in reading
situations that were not appropriate to their reading level or to their
needs. Instruction should begin where the child is capable of learning
at the optimum for that given child.
There was much disagreement among the writers as to what methods
or approaches to reading and to change are desirable, but there was al-
most complete agreement that what has been must change. Some references
indicated that meaningful change in the teaching of reading could be in-
troduced by employing Instructional Management Systems such as the Wis-
consin Design for Reading Skill Development.
70.
A Review of the Research Design
The dependent variables in this study were reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary, and total reading as measured by the corresponding
sub-tests of the Comprehension Test of Basic Skills, Form S, 1973.
Since intact classes were used, academic aptitude, as measured by the
Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude, were analyzed. If there had been
a significant difference between the treatment and control groups on
this measure along with a correlation between aptitude and the depend-
ent variables, then academic aptitude would have been used as a covar-
iant. There was not a significant difference between the treatment and
control groups on this measure; therefore, a one-way analysis of vari-
ance was conducted with the dependent variables. Data were analyzed
through the services of the Systematic Studies Department, Oakland
Schools, Pontiac, Michigan.
A Report of the Findings
Statistical hypotheses (except for hypotheses fifteen, eighteen,
and twenty-one) tested the effects of the Wisconsin Design Treatment
(WDRSD) for reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and total read-
ing were measured by the CTBS reading sub-test. These effects on
achievement were compared to a corresponding non-treatment control
group. The tests of hypotheses one through twenty-one (except for
hypotheses fifteen, eighteen, and twenty-one relating to male/female
reading differences) indicated that there was no significant difference
at the .05 level in reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and
total reading achievement between the Wisconsin Design Treatment group
and the corresponding Control group as measured by the CTBS reading
sub-test.
82
71
Hypotheses fifteen, eighteen, and twenty-one tested the effects
of the Wisconsin Design Treatment (WDRSD) between male and female sub-
groups for reading comprehension, reading vo,:abulary, and total reading
achievement as measured by the CTBS reading sub-test. The tests of
hypotheses fifteen, eighteen, avid twenty-one indicated that there was
a significant difference between the male and female sub-groups of the
treatment group. It should also be noted that there was a corresponding
significant difference between male and female sub-groups of the control
group with females performing at a higher level on these test measures.
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests of Vocabulary and Comprehen-
sion were administered to third grade students at three of the treatment
schools and at a control school in May, 1973 and May, 1974. Table 9
reports the mean pre-test and post-test grade scores in vocabulary and
comprehension by grade level placement of the students at the four
schools.
the data indicates that performance of treatment school students
and control students appear to be quite similar on the vocabulary and
comprehension sub-tests of the Gates-MacGinitie. These findings are in
agreement with results described earlier in this study using the CTBS
and have been included in this chapter for reporting purposes only.
As mentioned previously in this study the Wisconsin Tests were
administered initially as a battery of tests to ascertain those word
attack skills which had been mastered and the skill level at which the
student should be instructed. Following each instructional phase, a
test or tests covering the skills taught during that phase was adminis-
tered. Mastery of that skill or skills was assumed to have occurred
when the student achieved 80 percent or better on the test.
83
72
TABLE 9
MEAN PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST READING VOCABULARY ANDCOMPREHENSION SCORES (G.E.U.) FOR THIRD GRADE
TREATMENT (WDRSD) AND CONTROL GROUPS1973-74
Vocabulary
Pre-Test
N P1 SD N
Post-Test
M SD
Cherokee Hills 18 3.68 1.25 20 4.70 1.55
Covert 27 2.79 1.11 30 3.58 1.04
Williams Lake 52 3.12 1.08 63 3.91 1.27
Control 27 3.07 1.06 33 4.22 1.35
Comprehension
Pre-test Post-Test
SD N M SD
Cherokee Hills 18 3.67 1.19 20 4.68 1.41
Covert 27 2.64 1.03 30 3.33 1.06
Williams Lake 52 2.84 1.06 63 3.76 1.21
Control 27 2.72 1.08 33 3.92 1.31
Table 10 gives the average number of skills four treatment
schools students had mastered on the initial administration of the
Wisconsin Tests and the number of new skills mastered during the pro -
jest. This data is included in this chapter for reporting purposes
only.
Advocates of the Wisconsin Design assume that the Wisconsin Tests
of Reading Skill Development provided for measuring attainment of objec-
tives are valid indices of the skills taught. Based on this assumption
73
it can be demonstrated that treatment students have made substantial
gains related to mastering specific word attack skills as indicated
below. This was a most encouraging outcome for the Wisconsin Design
Treatment as an individualized instructional management system. The
results should have implications of similar expectation for popula-
tions, grade level, locales and settings comparable to those of Water-
ford School District.
TABLE 10
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORD ATTACK SKILLSACQUIRED BY THIRD GRADE STUDENTS
DURING 1973-74
Word Attack Skill Level*
Entry
SkillsFinalSkills Gain
Covert 23.20 28.67 5.47
Williams Lake 19.35 34.49 15.14
Cherokee Hills 22.70 33.19 10.49
Schoolcraft 25.84 34.76 8.92
*Explanation: Criterion-referenced tests were administeredprior to a student's receiving instruction. The Wisconsintests of reading skill development are divided into fourlevels from A to D. While grade levels are ignored, LevelA contains skills associated with kindergarten and firstgrade; while level D contains skills usually taught atthird and fourth grades. A student works at skills on hislevel until he achieves mastery of all or all but one.Mastery of a skill is assumed when the student achievesat an 80 percent level on the criterion referenced testfor that skill which is administered following the in-structional period. Table 10 indicates the levels atwhich students began working at the beginning of the pro-gram and the levels to which they progressed during theyear.
85
74
Discussion and Conclusions
Perhaps the recent development of Instructional Management Sys-
tems is related to the public demand for accountability. From my per-
ception the increased educational costs have been reflected in public
demand for accountability in education. Some educators have suggested
that an Instructional Management System provides an accountability
scheme that is preferable to some alternative scheme. That the concept
of accountability in education seems to be gaining in popularity is in
itself no valid reason to introduce an Instructional Management System.
However, accountability seems to be a part of the future of schools
and teachers. Instructional Management Systems may become a more com-
mon approach to the teaching of reading if public demand for accounta-
bility grows, because progress can be reported in a more specific and
meaningful way (for example, progress made on specific skills is
checked off on the report cards sent home to parents).
From my perception it seems possible that some educators have
advanced the concept of Instructional Management Systems as a teaching
vehicle to meet the rather stringent state and federal accountability
requirements.
The commercially available Instructional Management Systems and
the locally developed systems with which this investigator is familiar
show these components: (1) a sequentially ordered set of behavioral
objectives for the various skills (reading) monitored by the system,
(2) a set of sub-tests (or of test items) with one or more items
designed to measure each objective, (3) a rule or set of rules for
deciding what level of achievement constitutes mastery of each objec-
tive, (4) a resource file listing specific workbook pages, ditto
C:0
75
masters, games or kits and (hopefully) teaching strategies which teach-
ers can use to provide instruction and practice for children who have
failed to attain mastery of specific objectives, and (5) a method of
reporting to teachers which students have or have not mastered which
skills.
The tests of hypotheses showed no significant difference in read-
ing comprehension, reading vocabulary and total reading achievement be-
tween the Wisconsin Design treatment group and the control group after
one year of using one element of the WDRSD. Similarly, the tests of
hypotheses also indicated no significant difference in reading compre-
hension, reading vocabulary and total reading achievement between high,
middle and low aptitude pupils of the Wisconsin Debign treatment group
and the corresponding control group. In both the experimental and the
control groups, female subgroups surpassed their male counterparts.
From my perception this significant difference should be a subject of
future research. The word-attack element can be expected to attain the
pre-established criteria of reading skills achievement and has been
demonstrated in the study for reporting purposes.
This investigator concludes that performance of subjects enrolled
in the program (treatment group) on reading comprehension, reading vo-
cabulary and total reading as measured by the CTBS reading subtest were
not significantly different from the corresponding control group. This
investigator concludes that results of the study indicates the WDRSD
treatment apparently has neither a positive nor a negative influence on
the reading progress rates of the participants. These results may be
attributable to a conversion from a general word recognition teaching
r7
76
technique to a phonic approach and emphasis on word attack skills rather
than on comprehension. The results of this research do not condemn
WDRSD or Instructional Management Systems but do raise some questions
about effectiveness and efficiency of such approaches which require
further research. This investigator refers the reader to the review of
literature, Chapter II, where advantages and disadvantages of such sys-
tems are presented.
From my perception it is rather doubtful that any one best method
or product approach of instruction will be found or developed. It is
highly likely some "superior" methods will be developed for specific
outcomes, for certain personnel, for certain populations, or for cost
benefit factors. This concept was discussed recently by Hull1in the
November, 1973 Phi Delta Kappan. In his writing certain criteria were
presented for selecting and deciding on individualized instructional
approaches to fit explicit local needs.
Recommendations
Educational research generally reflects the notion that the
teacher is the most important variable related to pupil outcomes in
successes or failures on programs or materials used. If a school dis-
trict were to implement the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Devel-
opment I would recommend that the district's administration prepare
for considerable staff planning, in-service education and commitment
to the development of an Instructional Management System. It should
be noted that the Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development as an
1Roland E. Hull, "Selecting an Approach to Individualized In-struction," Phi Delta Kappan 55 (November 1973):
77
Instructional Management System is unique and a school district must
meet the unique requirements of the developers of this system. Staff
cannot be trained nor can materials be purchased until a local facili-
tator or team is identified and sent to either Madison, Wisconsin
(University of Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive
'Learning) or to the Institute for Development of Educational Activities
(Kettering Foundation) in Dayton, Ohio. After an intensive training
session the facilitator or team returns to the local district and pro-
vides system design orientation for the local administration, Board of
Education, instructional staff and support staff. If the district
chooses to adopt and implement the Wisconsin Design, after this over-
view and orientation to the goals, purposes, procedures, and functions
of the Design, then a written agreement is entered into between the
local district and the product research developer. At this point a
local district may purchase the packaged materials needed to implement
the Dc ign and more comprehensively educate the instructional and sup-
port staff in the use of the Instructional Management System.
From my perception a school district would be wise to first ob-
tain volunteer pilot instructional and support staffs with the corres-
ponding classrooms prior to district adoption and implementation of
the Design. It is further recommended that attitude surveys be given
to pilot project students, parents, instructional staff and support
staff to help determine if an enthusiastic educational environment
exists for the development of the Instructional Management System.
A concluding recommendation would be that a longitudinal study
be made, over a number of years if a district adopts the Wisconsin
39
78
Design as an Instructional Management System to determine if pupil
reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and total reading achieve-
ment will be significantly affected by extended use of the Wisconsin
Design that would include all six elements (Word Attack, Study Skills,
Comprehension, Self-Directed Reading, Interpretive Reading and Creative
Reading). Educators at all levels ought to be actively involved in
conducting this research.
9v
APPENDICES
79
9i
APPENDIX A
TEST INSTRUMENTS
80
9w
81
Test Title: COMPREHENSIVE TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS (CTBS)1973 Edition, Form S
Package Price: .93 per student
Publisher: CTB/McGraw-Hill
Type of Test: Achievement
Level:
Sub-Scores:
Level 1 (Grades 2.5 - 4.9)Level 2 (Grades 4.5 - 6.9)Level 3 (Grades 6.5 - 8.9)Level 4 (Grades 8.5 - 12.9)
Reading - VocabularyReading - ComprehensionReading - TotalLanguage - SpellingLanguage - MechanicsLanguage - ExpressionLanguage - TotalMathematics - ComputationMathematics - ConceptsMathematics - ApplicationsMathematics - TotalReference SkillsScienceSocial StudiesTotal Battery
Total Test Time:
4 hrs. 28 minutes4 hrs. 23 minutes4 hrs. 22 minutes4 hrs. 15 minutes
Description:
The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) battery is anachievement test battery consisting of tests in three basic skillsareas: Reading, Language, and Mathematics. Three additional testsare also included in the battery, but are not included in the TotalBattery score. These tests are Reference Skills, Science, and SocialStudies. The emphasis in this series is on the measurement of thegrasp of broad concepts and abstractions. Form S primarily differsfrom previous editions in the addition of two new tests, Science andSocial Studies, which eliminated the need for the Graphic Materialstest. The various intellectual processes and content tested are shownin a breakdown of the items which can be used in determining if thetest is directly related to the school's educational objectives.
82
Reliability:
Preliminary reports from the publisher contain Kuder Richardsonreliability coefficients for Form S of the CTBS by grade, level, andsubtest. The ranges of these reliability estimates are as follows:
Level 1 (.76 - .99)Level 2 (.79 - .98)Level 3 (.76 - .99)Level 4 (.74 - .98)
Validity:
The Test Coordinator's Handbook suggests that content validityshould be the primary concern of users of the CTBS. In order to facil-itate decisions concerning the correspondence between items in the CTBSand the content and processes of local curricula, item classificationtables are presented in the Handbook. The publisher also assures hisuser that all items are carefully constructed to conform with currentrules for item writing.
91
83
Test Title: SHORT FORM TEST OF ACADEMIC APTITUDE (SFTAA),1970 Edition
Package Price: .55 per student
Publisher: CTB/McGraw-Hill
Type of Test: Aptitude
Level:
Level 2 (Grades 3 - 4)Level 3 (Grades 5 - 6)Level 4 (Grades 7 - 9)Level 5 (Grades 9 - 12)
Sub-Scores:
LanguageNon-LanguageTotal
Description:
Total Test Time:
34 minutes34 minutes34 minutes34 minutes
The Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) was developedas an instrument to assess the level of intellectual developmentattained by the student, and to predict his potential rate of pro-gress and level of success in school. The test is the successor ofthe 1963 California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity. The SFTAAincludes four separately timed subtests which measure vocabularydevelopment (Vocabulary), logical reasoning (Analogies), quantita-tive relations (Sequences), and meaningful memory (Memory). Vocab-ulary and Memory constitute the language section; Analogies andSequences make up the Non-Language section.
Reliability:
Reliability estimates were computed for each grade, level, andsub-score using three different methods-- internal consistency (KR20),Interlevel articulation (correlations between scores on two levels ofthe test administered to the same grade level), and test-retest. Theseranged from .65 to .96; .77 to .89; and from .82 to .96 respectively.
84
Validity:
Language--Non-language correlations ranged from .51 to .66which suggests that the two sub-scales each measured aspects (althoughsomewhat different) of academic-,aptitude. The technical Bulletinalso reports the relationship between SFTAA scores and CaliforniaAchievement Tests scores. The two total batteries correlated as fol-lows:
SFTAA CAT-70
Level 2 2 .86 (Grade 3)Level 3 3 .84 (Grade 5)Level 4 4 .81 - .85 (Grade T- 9)Level 5 5 .82 - .84 (Grade 9 - 12)
85
Test Title: GATES MacGINITIE READING TESTS (GATES),1965 Edition
Package Price: .48 per student
Publisher: Teachers College Press
Type of Test: Reading Achievement
Level:
Level D (Grades 4 - 6)Level E (Grades 7 - 9)Level F (Grades 10 - 12)
Sub-Scores:
Speed and Accuracy--RightsSpeed and Accuracy--AttemptsVocabularyComprehension
Description:
Total Test Time:
46 minutes45 minutes44 minutes
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests consist of three parts:Speed lnd Accuracy, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. The Speed andAccuracy Test provides an objective measure of how rapidly studentscan read with understanding. The Vocabulary Test samples the stu-dent's reading vocabulary. The Comprehension Test measures the stu-dent's ability to read complete prose passages with understanding.
Reliability:
Alternate form reliability coefficients are reported in theTechnical Manual. The ranges on the sub-tests are as follows:
Level D (.67 - .89)Level E (.68 - ..?3)
Level F (not reported)
Validity:
The test publisher suggests that test users should determinecontent validity by examining the test items and determining theirappxopriateness for the goals of their specific programs. Concurrentvalidity studies are now under way. Initial results indicate correla-tions of the GATES with four other reading survey tests.
97
APPENDIX B
WISCONSIN DESIGN FOR READING SKILL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF SKILLS AND OBJECTIVES
FOR WORD ATTACK
86
87
STATEMENT OF SKILLS AND OBJECTIVES FOR WORD ATTACK**
Note: Skill numbers are raised and appear after skill descriptions.For example, Level A, Skill 6, is found in the outline of A.3. An ifollowing the skill number indicates that assessment must be indivi-dually administered.
Level A
1. Listens for rhyming elements
a. Words1
Objective: Given familiar words pronounced by the teacher,child
*indicates which of three words rhymes with astimulus word; or
*tells whether two words do or do not rhyme.
b. Phrases and verses2
Objective: In read or nonsense verses read by the teacher,the child
*supplies the missing word in a verse (e.g.,"The big tall man/Fried eggs in a "); or
*identifies the rhyming words.
2. Notices likenesses and differences
a. Pictures (shapes)3
Objective: The child identifies shapes that are the sameor different in form and orientation.
b. Letters and numbers4
Objective: The child selects the letter (upper or lowercase) or number in a series that is identicalto a key number of letter.
(The child points to the letter that is the sameas the first letter or number in a row--e.g.,
P: B T P Ks: s z e c
9: 6 0 9 8)
9 9
88
c. Words and phrases5
Objective: The child selects the word or phrase in a seriesthat is identical to a stimulus word or phrase(e.g., down: wand, down, bone, find; back andforth: back and find, back and forth, found it).
3. Distinguishes colors6i
Objective: The child identifies the color blue, green,black, yellow, red, orange, white, brown, andpurple when named by the teacher.
4. Listens for initial consonant sounds7
Objective: Given a familiar word pronounced by the teacher,the child indicates which of three other wordsbegins with the same consonant sound.
Level B
1. Has a sight word vocabulary li
Objective: Given a maximum one-second exposure per word,the child recognizes preprimer and primer levelwords from the adapted Dolch sight vocabularylist.
Note:
..
The specific preprimer and primer words are givenin the list which appears on page 98. The childshould be able to recognize additional sight
words in instructional materials to which he hasbeen exposed.
2. Follows left-to-right sequence2i
Objective: The child reacts to number or letter stimuli ina left-to-right sequence.
(The child names the letters or numbers pre-sented in rows--e.g.,
N C HPc o e g4 7 1 2
--in a left-to-right sequence.)
3. Has phonic analysis skills
a. Consonant sounds
1) Beginning consonant sounds 3
1
Objective: Given real
89
or nonsense words pronounced by theteacher, the child
*identifies the letter that stinitial sound and
*tells whether two words do or do not beginalike; or
*supplies another word that begins with thesame sound.
ands for the
2) Ending consonant sounds4
Objective: Given real or nonsense words pronounced by theteacher, the child
*identifies the letter that stands for theending sound and
*tells whether two words do or do not endalike; or
*supplies another word that ends with the samesound.
b. Consonant blends5
Objective: Given real or nonsense words that begin withthe consonant blends bl, cl, fl, gl, pl, sl,br, cr, dr, fr, gr, pr, and tr, the child
*identifies the two letters that stand for theinitial blend in words pronounced by theteacher; or
*identifies words that begin with the sameblend as a stimulus word pronounced by theteacher and
*pronounces words that begin with the blendslisted above.
c. Rhyming elements6
Objective: Given a word, the child
*selects a rhyming word based on structure(e.g., man, pan, and fan are from the sameword family); or*supplies a real or nonsense rhyming wordbased on structure.
d. Short vowels7
Objective: Given a one - syllable word with a single shortvowel sound pronounced by the teacher (e.g.,man, duck, doll, hop), the child
101
e. Simple
90
*identifies the letter that stands for the vowelsound; or
*reproduces the vowel sound.
consonant digraphs8
Objective: Given real or nonsense words pronounced by theteacher, the child identifies the letters inthe simple two-consonant combinations sh, ch,and th that result in a single new sound.
4. Has structural analysis skills
a. Compound words9
Level C
Objective: The child
*identifies compound words; or*specifies the elements of a compound word.
b. Contractionsl°
Objective: The child
c. Base words
Objective:
d. Plurals 12
Objective:
*identifies simple contractions (e.g., I'm,it's, can't)
*uses contractions correctly in sentences.
and endingsll
The child identifies the root word in familiarinflected words (e.g., jumping, catches, runs).
The child tells whether familiar words (nounplus s or es) are singular or plural.
e. Possessive forms 13
Objective: The child identifies the possessive forms ofnouns used in context.
1. Has a sight word vocabularyli
Objective: Given a maximum one-second exposure per words,the child recognizes first grade words fromthe adapted Dolch sight vocabulary list.
1 r' 9
Note:
91
See the list on page 98 for specific words.The child should be able to recognize addi-tional sight words in instructional materialsto which he has been exposed.
2. Has phonic analysis skills
a. Consonants and their variant sounds2
Objective: Given words containing variant sounds of c, s,and g (e.g., cake--city, sit--trees, go -- giant),the child indicates whether the underlined let-ter:, in given pairs of words have the same ordifferent sounds.
Note: Although the consonants c, g, s, q, d, x, t,and z have more than one sound, variant soundsof c, s, and g are most common at this level.
b. Consonant blends3
Objective: Given real or nonsense words beginning with theconsonant blends st, sk, sm, sp, sw, and sn,the child
*identifies the two letters that stand for theinitial blend in words pronounced by theteacher; or
*identifies words that begin with the blendslisted above.
c. Vowel sounds
1) Long vowel sounds4
Objective: The child
*identifies the letter that stands for thesingle vowel sound in real or nonsense wordspronounce& by the teacher (e.g., nose, brile,cheese, seat, labe, run, mab) and indicateswhether the sound is long or short; or
*pronounces real or nonse words with a singlevowel sound.
2) Vowel plus r5
Objective: The child
*identifies the vowel that is with r in real ornonsense words pronounced by the teacher (e.g.,darl, der, mur, form, girt); or
,`
.1. 01)
92
*pronounces words with r-controlled vowels(e.g., part, fur, hurt, bird).
Note: Because er, ir, and ur have the same sound,e, i, or u use the appropriate response iner, ir, and ur words.
3) a plus 15
Objective: The child
*identifies the letters that stand for the alsound in real or nonsense words pronouncedby the teacher; or*pronounces words in which there is an al com-bination (e.g., salt, ball, zall).
4) a plus w5
Objective: The child
*identifies the letters that stand for the awsound in real or nonsense words pronouncedby the teacher; or
*pronounces words in which there is an aw com-bination (e.g., draw, saw, blew).
5) Diphthongs ew, oi, ox, ou, ow6
Objective: Given words containing ew, oi, oy, ou and ow,the child
*identifies the diphthong in nonsense wordspronounced by the teacher; or
*pronounces words containing diphthongs.
6) Long and short oo7
Objective: The child
*indicates whether the oo in words has thelong oo (e.g., choose) or the short oo (e.g.,book) sound; or
*pronounces words in which there is an oo com-bination.
d. Vowel generalizations
1) Short vowel generalization8
Objective: Given real or nonsense words in which thereis a single vowel and a final consonant (e.g. -,bag, his, cat, gum), the child
10
93
*tells whether the words are pronounced accord-ing to the generalization; or
*pronounces the words giving the vowel itsshort sound.
Note: Children should learn that some familiar sightwords are exceptions to this generalization(e.g., bold, find, sight, wild).
2) Silent e generalization9
Objective: Given real or nonsense words that have twovowels, one of which is a final e separatedfrom the first vowel by a consonant (e.g.,cake, cube, mape, Jame), the child
Note:
*tells whether the words are pronounced accord-ing to the generalization; or
*first attempts pronunciation by making thefirst vowel long and the final e silent.
Children should learn that some familiar sightwords are exceptions to this generalization(e.g., come, have, prove).
3) Two vowels together generalizationl°
Objective: Given real or nonsense words that have two con-secutive vowels (e.g., boat, meet, bait, deach),the child
Note:
*tells whether the words are pronounced accord-ing to the generalization; or
*first attempts pronunciation by making thefirst vowel long and the second vowel silent.
Children should learn that some familiar sightwords (e.g., bread, August) and words contain-ing diphthongs are exceptions to this general-ization.
4) Final vowel generalizationl 1
Objective: Given real or nonsense words in which the only. vowel is at the end (e.g., go, she, thi), the
child
*tells whether the words are pronounced accord-ing to the generalization; or
*pronounces the words giving the vowel its longsound.
105
Note:
94
Children should learn that some familiar sightwords are exceptions to this generalization(e.g., do, who).
e. Common consonant digraphs12
Objective: Given real or nonsense words pronounced by theteacher, the child identifies the letters inthe two-consonant combinations ch, nk, sh,th, and wh that result in a single new sound.
3. Has structural analysis skills
a. Base words with prefixes and suffixes13
Objective: The child selects base words with or withoutaffixes that are appropriate to the context.
b. More difficult plural forms14
Objective: The child tells whether more difficult pluralforms (e.g., mice, ladies, children) aresingular or plural.
4. Distinguishes among homonyms, synonyms,
a. Homonyms15
Objective:
and antonyms
Given a sentence context, the child choosesbetween homonyms (e.g., Mother bought somemeet/meat for dinner).
b. Synonyms and antonyms"
Objective: The child tells whether words in a pair havethe same, opposite, or simply different mean-ings.
5. Has independent and varied word attack skills17i
Objective:
Note:
In both self-directed and teacher-directedreading, the child uses a variety of skills(e.g., picture clues, context clues, struc-tural analysis, sound/symbol analysis, com-parison of new to know words) in attackingunknown words.
The objective can be assessed through anindividually-administered informal readinginventory or by teacher observation.
106
95
6. Chooses appropriate meaning of multiple-meaning
Objective: Given a multiple-meaning word intexts, the child chooses the meanpriate to a particular context.
words18
varied con-ing appro-
Level D
1. Has a sight word vocabularyli
Objective: Given a maximum one-second exposure pthe child recognizes second and thirdwords from the adapted Dolch sight voclist.
Note:
r word,
gradebulary
See the list given on page 99 for speciwords. The child should be able to recoadditional sight words in instructionalmaterials to which he has been exposed.
2. Has phonic analysis skills
a. Three-letter consonant blends2
fic
gnize
Objective: The child identifies the letters in the threletter blends scr, shr, 110, sir, str, and thin real or nonsense words pronounced by theteacher.
b. Simple principles of silent letters3
Objective: Given words containing silent letters (e.g.,knife, gnat, write, dumb, doubt, high, flight,eat, four, believed), the child
Note:
*identifies the silent letters; or*pronounces words containing silent letters.
Silent consonants commonly occur in the fol-lowing combinations: (k)n, (g)n, (w)r, (b)t,i(gh), (t)ch.
3. Has structural analysis skills
a. Syllabication4
ObjeCtive: The child divides words into single-vowelsound units by applying syllabication gener-alizations.
107
96
b. Accent
Objective: The child indicates the accented part (syllable)in familiar words, primarily two-syllable ones.
6c. Unaccented schwa
If the unaccented schwa is included in the developmentalreading program, this skill can be taught; if the schwais not included, this skill can be omitted. Although theability to identify the schwa sound has little inherentvalue, the child who is aware of the existence of theschwa sound may be more successful in sounding vowelsthan the child who is not.
Objective: Given words that he knows, the child specifiesthe unaccented syllable containing a schwa.
Note: Although the short sound of u in, say, puppyhas the same sound as that of the schwa, itis not a schwa because it is in the accentedsyllable.
d. Possessive forms 7
Objective: The child identifies possessive nouns and pro-nouns used in context.
**Copyright 1973, Board of Regents University of Wisconsin System forthe Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.Permission to reproduce these objectives was granted by NationalComputer Systems, Inc., 4401 W. 76th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota55435.
APPENDIX C
BREAKDOWN OF THE ADAPTED DOLCH
BASIC WORD LIST BY LEVELS
97
109
98
BREAKDOWN OF THE ADAPTED DOLCH
BASIC WORD LIST BY LEVELS
Level B: Preprimer
a find is not threeand for it one toaway funny jump play twobig go little red upblue help look run wecan here make said wherecome I me see yellowdown in my the you
Level B: Primer
all do no say wantam eat now she wasare four on so wellat get our soon wentate good out that whatbe have please there whiteblack he pretty they whobrown into ran this willbut like ride too withcamedid
mustnew
saw under yes
Level C: First Grade
after_ fly his old takeagain- from how once thankanany
givegoing
justknow
openover
them,
thenas had let put thinkask has live round walkby her may some werecouldevery
him of stop when
99
Level D: Second Grade
always does its sit veryaround don't made sleep washbecause fast many tell whichbeen first off their whybefore five or these wishbest found pull those workboth gave read upon wouldbuy goes right us writecall green sing use yourcold
Level D: Third Grade
about eight hurt myself sixbetter fall if never smallbring far keep only startcarry full kind own tenclean got laugh pick todaycut grow light seven togetherdone hold long shall trydraw hot much show warm!rink
ill
APPENDIX D
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT OF READING
100
112
Cla
tfi.;Wri
Name
101
AN INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT MODEL FORTHE IMPROVEMENT OF READING
IN-SERVICE ASSESSMENT
Which of the following are true about the use of tests and test scoresin the proper implementation of the Wisconsin Design for Reading SkillDevelopment. Check all those which apply.
1. Standardized test scores are often used to group children.
2. Criterion-referenced tests form the backbone of the indi-vidualized assessment program.
3. Assessment takes about the same amount of time in individ-ualized reading programs as in other programs--for instance,a basal program.
4. Frequent, short tests characterize the assessment program.
5. All individuals in the class are usually administered thesame test.
6. Children are placed in the instructional sequence afterassessment.
7. Objective-based assessment is appropriate after, not before,instruction is carried out.
8. Observations and teacher judgment are more appropriate aspre-assessment than as post-assessment techniques.
9. Often instead of pretesting, the teacher can assume thatchildren have not mastered an objective because it has notbeen dealt with instructionally.
10. Children need a period of readiness, adjustment, or totalclass activity before specific evaluative information isused to form groups.
11. The validity of an objective-based test is established bycomparing each item to the behavioral objectives.
12. Once a child is properly placed in the instructional pro-gram, pre-assessment is largely unnecessary.
1.13
102
13. Groups formed on the basis of assessment scores may bemodified by teacher judgment.
Rate the following items in terms of your understanding for implementa-tion in the reading program. Check only one answer for each question.
14. WTSD booklet tests (machine scored tests)are to be administered:
a. at the end of each nine weeks
b. within four weeks after school starts
c. whenever a child needs to be assessed
d. only at the end of the school year
15. When implementing the Design, children's placement into skillgroups is based upon their:
a. scores on standardized reading achievement
b. scores on WTSD: booklet testing (machine-scored tests)
c. performance in developmental reading group
d. scores on the Guides to Informal Individual SkillObservation
16. In the outline of reading skills there are major skill areas:
a. four
b. five
c. six
d. seven
17. The Guides to Informal Individual Skill Observation are to be usedas:
a. "teacher helps" to ascertain pupil skill development
b. "break-in" tests for the program
c. answer sheets for the individual assessment tests
d. both b and c
1 4
103
18. According to the Teacher's Planning Guide skill lnitructic-.1. shouldbe given a minimum of:
a. one hour per week
b. two hours per week
c. three hours per week
d. four hours per week
19. WTSD separate tests (teacher scored tests) are to be administered:
a. within four weeks after school starts
b. at the end of each nine weeks
c. whenever a child needs to be assessed
d. only at the end of the school year
20. Individual children should move out of a skill group:
a. after one week of instruction if it's an easy skill
b. whenever they appear to have grasped the skill
c. at the end of the instructional cycle
d. after the skill has been covered in the basal reader
21. The Guidelines for Self-Directed, Interpretive, and CreativeReading skills:
a. list a series of observable behaviors teachers shouldinclude in a complete reading program
b. list a series of closed objectives for areas IV, V,IV to be used after students have completed levelsA through D of the Word Attack component
c. list a series of assessment exercises for areas IV,V, VI
d. both b and c
1 1 5
104
22. In deciding the skills to be taught in an instructional cycle,teachers should give highest priority to:
a. the skills many children have mastered
b. the skills few children have mastered
c. the skills developed from independent work
d. the skills having the most entries in the TeacherResource file
23. The purpose of the Teacher Resource file is to:
a. provide a model for development of a local file
b. provide a complete listing of commercial materials
c. provide a complete listing of teacher-directedactivities
d. both b and c
24. The Wisconsin Design for Reading Skill Development is intended toserve as a:
a. basal reading program
b. language arts program
c. remedial program
d. none of these
25. The Teacher Resource File contains:
a. a list of published materials keyed to the skill list
b. a list of teacher directed activities keyed to theskill list
c. both a and b
d. a libt of assessment exercises
I
105
26. As a "rule of thumb", skill groups should usually last no longerthan:
a. one week
b. two weeks
c. three weeks
d. four weeks
27. Individual skill development records do not:
a. provide guidelines for the teaching of the skills
b. provide assistance in the formation of the instructionalgroups
c. become the basis for pupil-teacher conferences
d. facilitate communication among teachers regarding stu-dents reading achievement.
117
106
AGENDA
READING INSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT MODEL WORKSHOPJune 18-28
I. Introduction to the Wisconsin Design
A. Need
B. Components
1. Rationale and Guidelines2. Teachers Planning Guide3. Tests and Manuals4. Guides to Informal Assessment5. Pupil Profile Cards6. Resource Files
II. Reading Skills and Objectives
A. Behavioral Objectives
B. Discussion Groups--Levels A, B, C, D
III. Assessment
A. Finding the Need
B. Comparison of Objectives and Tests
1. Read Objectiv2. Read Instructions for Administering Tests3. Look at Test Items
IV. Teacher's Resource Files
A. A Matter of Resources
B. Simulation Exercise: Coding of Materials
V. Profile Cards
A. Preparing for Instruction
B. Discussion of Profile Cards and Record Keeping
118
107
VI. The Design in Operation
A. Wisconsin Design in the Overall Developmental Reading Program
B. Discussion
1. Basal Reader Approach
2. Language Experience Approach
3. Individualized Approach
VII. Roles of Individuals
A. Teacher
B. Teacher-aide
C. Reading Specialist
D. Principal
E. Coordinator
VIII. District Evaluation
A. Report--Audit Committee
B. Teacher Questionnaire
IX. 'egin Compiling Resource Files
A. Reading Specialist Assigned to Each Group to Assistin Preparing Files
119
108
WATERFORD SCHOOL DISTRICTREADING INSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT MODEL
I. Teaching experience
Staff Questionnaire
Less than 3 years3-5 yearsMore than 5 years
2. Level presently teaching
( )( )
Lower elementaryUpper elementary
Title III
3. Was enough in-service training provided?
4. Did the in-service adequately prepareyou to implement the Design in yourclassroom?
5. Are the materials in the teacher's re-source files adequate for teaching allor almost all skills?
6. Have you added new materials to theteacher's resource files?
7. Do you feel you can use materials moreefficiently and effectively in teachingspecific word attack skills?
8. Do you feel the Wisconsin Design testsare more valuable than standardizedtests for grouping children for skillinstruction?
9. Do you feel teaching word attack skillsis relevant to reading achievement?
1"0
Yes No No Response
109
Yes No No Response
10. Are you more aware of a sequence ofreading skills and how to teach theseskills?
11. Do you feel better qualified to groupyour students for instruction in spe-cific word attack skills?
12. Do you feel better qualified to diag-nose your students strengths and weak-nesses .in reading?
13. Do you feel better qualified to selectmaterials appropriate to the weaknessesof your students in word attack skills?
14. Do you feel better qualified to evalu-ate the progress your students havemade in acquiring word attack skills?
15. Were students given an opportunity toapply the skills they were learning?
16. Was enough time provided for groupingand preparing for skill instruction?
17. Has the Wisconsin Design helped you'ndividualize reading instruction?
18. Were enough support services provided(aides, coordinator, LIC reading spe-cialist, principal)?
19. Are aides necessary to help implementand operate the progral?
20. Do you plan to continue using theWisconsin Design next year?
If no, why not?
21. Do you feel we should begin working oncomprehension and study skills?
22. Do you feel the Wisconsin Design haspositively influenced the readingskills of your students?
23. Are you working with another teacherfor skill instruction?
Ier
110
24. How much time is allowed for skill instruction?
Less than 90 minutes per week90-120 minutes per week120-150 minutes per weekmore than 150 minutes per weekNo Response
25. On the average, how long does a skill group last?
( ) 1 week( ) 1 -2 weeks( ) 23/4-3 weeks
( ) 33/4-4 weeks
( ) No Response
26. What do you feel is the optimal number of days for skill groupsto meet?
Levels A & BLevels C & D
school days forschool days for
minutes.minutes.
27. What do you feel were the major advantages in implementing theWisconsin Design? (Check all that apply.)
focus on specific word attack skillsassisted in a flexible school organizationincreased individualizationincreased student motivationincreased communication between teachersincreased communication between principal and teachersincreased communication between school and homeincreased teacher knowledge of word attack skillsincreased pupil learning of word attack skillsbetter utilization of instructional materialsincreased student independent work habitsincreased teacher interest in reading instruction
28. What do you feel were the major problems in implementing theWisconsin Design? (Check all that apply.)
b
lack of time for planninglack of time for testinglack of inter -teach :r cooperation
lack of teacher-prepared materialslack of commercially produced materialscoordinating WDRSD: Word Attack program with on-goingreading program
scheduling of students between skill groupsscheduling of students to independent activities afterskill mastery
keeping pupil profile cards up to datelack of administrative and/or central office support
f::2
other (please specify)
1. Application of skills in basic reading2. Lack of time for other necessary skills--math, etc.
Additional comments, suggestions, etc.
1.'3
=!
113
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atkinson, R. C. "Computerized Instruction and the Learning Process."American Psychologist 23 (April 1968): 225-239
Baker, E. L. Experiments in Kindergarten Reading. Inglewood, Calif.:Southwest Regional Laboratory, 1969.
Beck, I. L. and Bolvink, J. O. "A Model for Non-Gradedness: TheReading Program for Individually Prescribed Instruction."Elementary English 46 (February 1969): 130-135.
Brown, A. "What Could Be Bad? Some Reflections on the AccountabilityMovement." English Journal 62 (March 1973): 461-463.
Brown, R. W. Bill. "A Systems Approach to Performance Based Instruc-tion." Educational Technologz 15 (April 1975): 58
---- --California Test Bureau. Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, Technical
Manual. Monterey, California: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968.
Chall, Jeanne. Learning to Read, The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
Clelard, Donald L. and Miller, Harry B. "Instruction in Phonics andSuccess in Beginning Reading." Elementary School Journal 65(February 1965): 278-282.
Cohn, Stella M. and Cohn, Jack. Teaching the Retarded Reader. NewYork: Odyssey Press, Inc., 1967.
Combs, A. W. "Human Side of Learning." National Elementary Principal52 (January 1973): 38-42.
Combs, A. W., Avila, D. L. and Purkey, W. W. The Helping RelationshipSource Book. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.
Dechant, Emerald V. Improving the TeachingLof Reading. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Dechant, Emerald. "Teacher Differences and Reading Method." Education86 (September 1965): 40-43.
Fay, Leo. "Trends in the Teaching of Elementary Reading." ,Phi DeltaKappan 41 (May 1960): 345-348.
Flanagan, J. C. "Individualizing Education." Education 90 (February-March 1970): 191-206.
114
Gates, Arthur I. and MacGinitie, Walter H. Gates-MacGinitie ReadingTests Technical Manual. New York: Teachers College Press,1965.
Guilford, J. p. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
Harris, Albert J. How to Increase Reading Ability. New York: Long-mans, Green, 1956.
Heckerl, John R. "Waterford School District--Evaluation Report of anInstructional Management Model for the Improvement of Reading."A report submitted to the Michigan Department of Education--Experimental and Demonstration Centers Program. (July 1973).
Heckerl, John R. "Waterford School District--Evaluation Report of anInstructional Management Model for the Improvement of Reading."Second report submitted to the Michigan Department of Education--Experimental and Demonstration Centers Program. (July 1974).
Hull, Roland E. "Selecting an Approach to Individualized Instruction."Phi Delta Kappan 55 (November 1973): 169-173.
Johnson, Barbah Lea. "Maximum Teacher Effectiveness." The ReadingTeacher 23 (November 1969): 126-131.
Johnson, Dale D. and Pearson, David P. "Skills Management Systems: ACritique." The Reading Teacher 28 (May 1975): 757-764.
Klausmeier, H. J., Quilling, M., Sorenson, J. S., Way, R. S. and Glas-rud, G. R. Individually Guided Education and the Multi-UnitElementary School. University of Wisconsin Research andDevelopment Center for Cognitive Learning. 1971.
McLoughlin, William P. "Individualization of Instruction vs. Nongrad-ing." phi Delta Kappan 53 (February 1972): 379-380;
Michigan Department of Education Research, Evaluation and AssessmentServices. Michigan Educational Assessment Program FirstReport. "Objectives and Procedures." (August 1973).
NEA Reporter. (July 24, 1970).
Otto, Wayne and Askov, Eunice. Rationale and Guidelines: The Wiscon-sin Design for Reading Skills Development. National ComputerSystems, 1972.
Piaget, Jean. The Origins of the Intelligence in Children. Trans.,M. Cook. New York: International Press, 1952.
Selden, Steven and Apple, Michael W. "What May a 75-Year Involvementwith the Language and Ideology of Business Tell Us.," Educa-tional Leadership 32 (April 1975): 453.
16
115
Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan pub-lishing Co., 1953.
Skinner, B. F. "Teaching Machines." Scientific American 205 (November1961): 90-102.
Smith, Nila Banton. American Reading Instruction. Park Ridge, Ill.:Silver Burdett Company, 1965.
Smith, Nila Banton. "What Have We Accomplished in Reading." EducationDigest 22 (September 1961): 40-43.
Stanford University. Fletcher, J. C. and Atkinson, R. C. "An Evalu-ation of the Stanford CAI Program in Initial Reading (Grades 1
through 13)." 1971.
Stauffer, Russel G. "Individualized Reading Instruction--A BackwardLook." Elementary English 36 (May 1959): 335-341.
Strang, Ruth. Diagnostic Teaching of Reading. New York: McGraw-HillBook Co., 1964.
Sullivan, H. J. Experiments in Kindergarten Reading. Inglewood,Calif.: Southwest Regional Laboratory, 1969.
Testing Catalog. Pontiac, Michigan: Oakland Schools (1974-75).
Thomas, R. M. and Thomas, S. M. Individual Differences in the Class-room. New York: McKay, 1965.
Wallat.n, M. A. and Kogan, N. Modes of Thinking in Young Children. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.
Waterford School District. "Waterford Model for Instructional plan-ning." 1974.
Waterford School District. Research and Evaluation Division. "NeedsAssessment Report to the Board of Education, Section E." 1972.
Wozencraft, Marian. "Reading Methods When Grandmother was a Girl."Journal of Reading 8 (January 1965): 155-162.
Wright, C. E. "Evaluation Data and Their Uses in an IndividualizedEducational Program." Arlington, Virginia ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, ED 045 724. Project PLAN ProgressReport. (September 1970).
Wright, Calvin E.' "Project PLAN Progress Report." Education 90 (Feb-ruary 1970): 261-269.
![ROBERT JAMES ELLIOTT CURRICULUM VITAE CITIZENSHIP ...haskayne.ucalgary.ca/.../robert-elliott-cv.pdf · R.J. Elliott – CV [September, 2006 - Page 1] ROBERT JAMES ELLIOTT CURRICULUM](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5fdc51cfa239fb15507e657b/robert-james-elliott-curriculum-vitae-citizenship-rj-elliott-a-cv-september.jpg)
